US Bank OVERDRAFT FEES EXORBITANT Internet

If I am reading this correctly the problem is not with the Bank but with your lack of knowledge of how banks process transactions.

Weekends and Holidays are NOT a banking days and no transactions will POST, this is the same for any bank.  Deposits(unless there is an extended hold) are posted at the end of the next banking day and available the day after that.  In your case you deposited it on Saturday.  The next banking day is Monday, making the funds available on Tuesday morning.  Saturday to Tuesday is 4 days and would the the first day the funds would be available, so there was no additional hold.  It does not matter what bank you went with, they all would have been the same.

You will probably hear people talking about resequencing, but in your case you would have been hit with the fees no matter what as your available was $0.  Unlike the posting order which is often farther down in the the "fine print", the fee schedule and funds availability is readily available and usually made to stand out in the terms.  Just as it is your responsibility to understand the rules of the road when you drive, it is your responsibility to understand the terms of your account with the bank.

You also will hear some people talking about how keeping a register would not have helped.  In this case they are right.  But not because of anything the bank did that is outside of standard procedure.  In fact I do not recall even any talk of suits about banks not posting on Weekends or Holidays.  Also, even if they declined your card and returned the check you still would have complained for one reason, you would be upset that you think they held a check that "is always good".

I don't know why you talked to a "loan officer' about your overdraft fees.  I would suggest that you go back to your original branch and ask for the branch manager.  Explain to them how you mis-understood and see if they can waive the fees(or at least some of them).  While I won't guarantee that they will do anything.  Your chances are a lot better if you go in and be professional about it, rather than starting off by screaming RipOff or that you are going to sue them. 

When you open an account, BY LAW, the bank must inform you of their hold policies and their fee structure. You signed a legal document stating that you read, understand, and agree to all terms of the account. You just don't want to accept the fact that you were negligent.

...but..you really should have made sure the check cleared before spending it. If the funds are truly unavailable at the time of a transaction..and the bank covers it..then it gets a fee..and you have to admit you did sign to an agreement..

I don't know which class action suit you are referring too..there are quite a few pending. If there are any that are trying to sue for the charges being too high I am unaware. The issue we have is with certain terms and disclosures..and any ADDITIONAL fees that occur due to any manipulation by the bank. There are other factors as well still in discussion and under investigation.

Some suits we are working on deal with tactics the banks are using which we feel are unethical..and may be in violation..but the courts will decide.

The only way in your case where you MAY have a leg to stand on is the fact that you apparently have some type of overdraft protection..otherwise the transactions that did not have the funds available when using the card would have been declined...correct? And ..do you feel the deposit was "held" for an unreasonable amount of time for the sole purpose of the bank encouraging you to overdraft?..be honest. Would you have preferred the transactions with the card that were covered by the bank (a "loan" in a sense of the word) to have been declined rather then the bank covering them and charging you a fee for the "service"? These are questions you honestly have to ask yourself and answer with integrity.

So, did the bank offer you to opt out of overdraft protection? Did the bank ask you to sign specifically for this or any other type of overdraft protection? Does your bank require you to enroll in overdraft protection against your will? Did the bank explain how the overdraft protection works?

Where some of us believe is part of the unfairness and contradictions SOME banks are performing is that they charge steep penalties for overdrafting..and in many cases charge fees for transactions that had the funds available according to their registers and bank statement. The bank will place all the blame on the customer for overdrafting and causing all the fees. And then tell us we must not have used a register or this all could have been avoided. Bear in mind your case is not about register usage..but deposit holding or processing time, and overdraft protection

The thing is wouldn't you think the bank is encouraging overdrafting if they not only offer this protection..but make it mandatory or very difficult to opt out..then issue a resister which is supposedly to prevent the very thing that the protection they are forcing us to take will cause or lead some into thinking it is okay to overdraft because the are presumably "protected"? See how this works?

So yes...the customer is often responsible for an overdraft occurring..and they pay the fees for doing so..but do you think the bank perhaps in some cases.. plays a part in causing or encouraging this in any way?

Now some bank defenders may come here and try to discredit me personally..or the actions I suggest..and twist things around. I just want them to be aware in this case..and many others I not placing all the blame on the bank..and I am not saying the customer is not at fault. What I am saying is there is a chance the bank does hold some blame and MAY be using tactics that are unethical..unfair, unreasonable and possibly illegal...BUT bear in mind...the courts will decide this in the long run..not us going back and forth debating, bickering and insulting each other. The issue is between the customers who feel victimized..and THEIR banks..soon to be plaintiff vs defendant.

The results are to be seen..nobody can predict the outcome..because outcomes tend to differ over time and through persistence. If any laws are to be changed to better protect consumers...this is where it starts..I am not happy about it either but the system is the system..we are stuck with it.

We all get excited and think if we deposit a check that the money is there. 

I know we probably all have had an overdraft charge.  I personally would rather pay the fee than be embarrassed that I was not accurate with my bank ledger.  It hurts especially when the fee is greater than the charge.  But if you don't like those rules, cash the check and do everything in cash and you'd have no extra hidden fees.  I am not perfect, nor is anyone else.  But the terms of your bank account are there..we are just as a society that's sign happy and forget to read the fine fine small small blah blah blah legal disclaimers.

Work with cash.  Its safer and you know how much you can spend and how much you can't.

All banks and credit unions have longer hold times for the first thirty days of any new account.  That would have been detailed in your account agreement had you read it.  A 4 day hold is not bad.  They can hold them up to 10 days on a new account.

Also be aware that if you decide to close the account an use a different bank, you may also be charged a fee for closing so soon after opening it (I think it is 90 days but I am not sure).

...Very few here ever do..other then the people posting the ripoff report.


Also you should note that many of the bank defenders here claim they NEVER had an overdraft.

But I find it strange that you would rather pay an overdraft fee then be "embarrassed" that you were not accurate with your bank ledger? Why would that embarrass you? As far as I am concerned embarrass me all day..just don't take my money..please. But to each his/her own..which is why overdraft protection service should be a choice..and everyone should fully understand the consequences if they are given the option to enroll in it or not.

You see to save yourself from being embarrassed..one day you may think you are only overdrafted by one transaction in an emergency, or a mistake..or an unexpected fee..or a merchant overcharge or error..or some billing system that changes it's time without your consent..hundreds of possible causes..but you may be racked by a dozen fees at 35 dollars a pop..and when you go to the bank to dispute it..they will hand you a register and tell you to go pound sand...if you don't believe me you truly do not know how the banks operate these days.

And talk about the fee greater then the charge....how about 35 dollars for a cup of coffee?..and you will say to the bank "why on earth would I have used the card if I thought the coffee would cost me a 35 dollar fee", and they will tell you to go jump off a bridge..you can't reason with them..it is futile. I am far more embarassed paying 35 dollars for a cup of coffee then if the coffee shop handed me back the card declined. I would thank the bank in that case...saved me 35 bucks and that ain't peanuts these days.

Now as you stated,,,no one is perfect..(well the banks are according to some)..and the world is not a perfect place. If it was we would all be paid in cash..and be able to send cash in the mail to pay our bills..and be able to walk around with all our checking account money in our pockets..and not be required to show a debit or credit card to rent a car and so many other things we have to do to get around..well the reality is we need banks...but more important is we need to trust them..or need regulations that can convince them to be trustworthy. Until that time..I highly suggest to keep a ledger...and protect yourself by opting out of overdraft protection..or using a different form such as a transfer service if you have a savings account to link to. It's not perfect...but it's better then the standard so called protection they force on us..especially when we come to find out it hurt us bad..but protected the bank quite effectively.

I cannot bite my tongue on this one.  I cannot believe the number of grown adults that whine and complain and refuse to take any personal responsibility for their actions.

This whole argument is getting really really old.  I think EVERYONE here agrees, that there are changes that the banks can make, policy-wise, that would be far more gentle to those who make banking errors (such as not posting purchases highest to lowest, lowering the dollar amount of the fee), but, frankly, I don't see that happening.  It is what it is.

The BEST way to fight this issue, is to learn from your mistakes.  Yes, people live paycheck to paycheck, have medical bills, go through divorces, are students, are elderly, etc...but if you open the account, YOU, are ultimately responsible for it.  No excuses.

Also you should note that many of the bank defenders here claim they NEVER had an overdraft.

I don't know about the many you talk about.  While I have seen others talk about how they don't get hit with any overdraft fees anymore, I can not recall anyone saying that they have NEVER received one.  Although I am sure if there is one you will let us know.  In my case I have stated on more than one occasion that I did overdraft in the past.  The difference is that instead of automatically blaming the bank and latching onto people who want to enable the "victim" mentality.  I went through and figured out what I need to do to avoid them in the future.

I am far more embarrassed paying 35 dollars for a cup of coffee then if the coffee shop handed me back the card declined.

- Okay Ronnie let me first say if people want to opt-out, or you change it to where they are required to opt-in to any sort of protection I have no problem with that.  But again you seem to be suggesting that there is really no penalty possible for having your card declined.  As they would just hand the card back to you.

So let's just say you opt-out(or don't opt-in).  Let's now change the coffee shop to a sit down restaurant.  Since no one is perfect you mis-calculated your balance in the register which you know to keep.  You hand the waitress/waiter your card at the end of your meal and it comes back declined.  You already ate the meal but now can't pay for it because you don't have access to any other cards or cash.  What do you do then?  Would you be thanking the bank for saving you $35?  Probably not, because I can tell you what the restaurant would do.  They would call the local police department. 

Now as you stated,,,no one is perfect..(well the banks are according to some)..

- I don't think anyone has ever said that the banks are perfect.  But the vast majority of reports on here do not involve bank error.  They involve a lack of management on the account holders part.

This is in response to sylver8248 who said: ''I think EVERYONE here agrees, that there are changes that the banks can make, policy-wise, that would be far more gentle to those who make banking errors (such as not posting purchases highest to lowest, lowering the dollar amount of the fee), but, frankly, I don't see that happening.  It is what it is.''

From the Associated Press yesterday:

''Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, two of the nation’s biggest banks, announced plans on Tuesday to drastically overhaul their debit card programs by lowering or eliminating fees, changing the way they credit transactions and allowing customers to opt out of overdraft protection.

Bank of America said it would allow current customers to turn off the ability to spend when their account hits zero, starting Oct. 19. Next June, the bank plans to limit the number of times each year that current customers can overdraw their accounts when using a debit card at a store. It will let new customers choose whether they want overdraft protection when they are opening their account.

Bank of America said it was spurred by consumer demand rather than legislative pressure to change its policy. “We made the decision that we had to help customers now and help those most stretched by the economy,” said Brian T. Moynihan, president of Bank of America’s consumer and small-business banking operations. “They found themselves getting hit by too many fees, and they said, ‘Help us out.’ ”

''When asked about the reversal from the fee hikes earlier this year, [A BofA spokesperson] said .''the company is responding to the "changing needs" of customers in the difficult economic environment''.

Shall we expect US Bank to follow suit? Well if presendence is any indicator, look at how all banks followed suit when they all started implementing these ripoff practices.

First of all if what you posted is true that is a good thing to give people the choice.  However, it does not fix the underlying issue of people not managing their accounts, and could actually backfire on the account holder by giving them a false sense of security.  There was nothing in that report that says they were going to lower the fee.  There was nothing that you wrote that says that the banks are going to change the order they process transactions.

I suspect that once these get put into place, the people that overdrafted will still overdraft.  Because according to what you wrote it will only stop them if they are currently at $0.  It does not take into account items such as checks(which I imagine they are now going to return), or places such as Gas Stations that only authorize $1. 

For example.  If someone has $40 in their account which they spend $30 at 3 places.  Then they go to the gas station.  The station only authorizes $1(which since they have $10 is approved).  But they pump $35 and will overdraw the account.  These are debit card transactions and as you are aware the bank can not decline them.  For argument's sake lets say that these got posted on different days to only cause 1 OD fee.  Now, the account holder was under the impression that the bank is supposed to stop this from happening.  So when they get hit with the one overdraft fee they claim "RipOff".  So you have the bank giving them the option to opt-out, this case it is impossible for the bank to stop it, and they only got hit with one OD fee.  So who is at fault, the bank or the account holder?

I also imagine we will get an entirely new set of "RipOffs".  Instead of talking about the fees they are charging.  They will complain about how their card was declined at the local Fast Food restaurant so they couldn't buy food for their 3 starving kids who haven't eaten two days.

By the way sorry Ronny I didn't realize that I mis-typed the spelling on your name until it was too late.

Removing overdraft protection only goes so far. With the way the debit system works, certain types of holds like fuel or restaurant purchases cannot be relied upon to be totally accurate. Throw some paper checks into the mix and you still have a great potential for fees.

 Relying on an online balance spells trouble (as can be easily seen on this site). Relying on your debit card to stop putting through transactions when it thinks you're out of money has less potential financial risk, but comes nowhere near eliminating the problem (as Robert succinctly explained above). Taking control of your finances, reducing debit card transaction to a minimum, and keeping a current and accurate record of credits and debits will reduce the likelyhood of an overdraft fee to nearly zero.

 Why is there so much resistance to this? I last got burned by an overdraft fee over 10 years ago, because I wasn't aware of how the system worked. That's the day I started keeping a register religiously. I also began my habit of withdrawing an amount of cash that would pay for incidental expenses throughout the week, rather than using the debit card. This meant that even if I did screw up my register, there would not be a dozen $3 debit transactions to haunt me. Adopting such practices would eliminate 90% of the bank complaints on this site, which is why I so strongly advocate them. It's worked for me and there's no reason it shouldn't work for anyone else, no matter where they bank.

Also you should note that many of the bank defenders here claim they NEVER had an overdraft.

"I don't know about the many you talk about.  While I have seen others talk about how they don't get hit with any overdraft fees anymore, I can not recall anyone saying that they have NEVER received one.  Although I am sure if there is one you will let us know.  In my case I have stated on more than one occasion that I did overdraft in the past.  The difference is that instead of automatically blaming the bank and latching onto people who want to enable the "victim" mentality.  I went through and figured out what I need to do to avoid them in the future."

Response....I said MANY..not all..but perhaps it was inaccurate as there are not really that "many" bank defenders..I see quite a bit more people posting ripoff reports here then defending the banks.. I will give you that one. But there certainly are defenders that have blatantly stated they never had an overdraft.I can dig some up at your request..I just don't feel like trudging through old reports right now to prove a basically useless point.

Regardless..when did you overdraft? What was the circumstances and your banks policies at the time? Did you incur any fees on transactions that had the funds at the time of the transactions? Had you been opted out of OD protection would you have avoided a fee or any additional fees associated..or would it have made no difference? Would a register have prevented it? Or did you keep a register and still incur the overdraft? A few questions that if you choose to answer honestly..will add some validity to your reply.

Whatever your answers are...perhaps you did not feel you were ripped off..and henceforth not a victim..but if someone feels they were ripped off..or otherwise mislead by the bank..or not given the opportunity to opt out of OD protection..and then because of that were chagred additional fees that could have been avoided..or a shady merchant placed charges on the card the the so called protection allowed..and instead of the bank coming to the defense of their customer when disputed..just added a whole bunch more fees...so in that case...why would a person not feel victimized? Whether in your opinion or not they shouldn't..can you really blame them for feeling like a victim of a rip off? Or are thousands of people wrong and you are right?  100% of the time. A little conceited if you were not to agree.

I am far more embarrassed paying 35 dollars for a cup of coffee then if the coffee shop handed me back the card declined.

"- Okay Ronnie let me first say if people want to opt-out, or you change it to where they are required to opt-in to any sort of protection I have no problem with that.  But again you seem to be suggesting that there is really no penalty possible for having your card declined.  As they would just hand the card back to you.

So let's just say you opt-out(or don't opt-in).  Let's now change the coffee shop to a sit down restaurant.  Since no one is perfect you mis-calculated your balance in the register which you know to keep.  You hand the waitress/waiter your card at the end of your meal and it comes back declined.  You already ate the meal but now can't pay for it because you don't have access to any other cards or cash.  What do you do then?  Would you be thanking the bank for saving you $35?  Probably not, because I can tell you what the restaurant would do.  They would call the local police department. "

Response: There are always going to be circumstances and hypotheticals to contend with. Look...before the days of cards being so popular..and even in current times..a person could have a meal and realize their wallet is missing..or they forgot to bring enough cash..all kinds of possible scenarios. Now in any case, if a customer can't pay the bill..sure there is a chance the police could be called. And regardless of the outcome..the customer in this case could not blame the bank..they would have to find a way to pay the bill..or get into trouble.

I have posted a hundred times here that part of my defense from getting ripped off is i do not use my debit card in restaurants because they can cause all kinds of havoc (same with bars) with authorization holds and scamming tips by adding zeros..so for me it is not a concern really...but most likely the majority of the time by opting out of OD..that scams will be stopped..unauthorized transactions will be stopped..and the card WILL be declined and handed back to the customer at a POS..or declined at an ATM.

Now I am not saying that opting out of OD protection is an excuse to be careless with your funds..the consumer  has a responsibility to know what they have to spend..but in the many cases we read here..and in my personal experience with the way some merchants work..and until some bank policies are changed..my money is MUCH better protected by choosing NOT to enroll in the "courtesy" overdraft protection service. Anyone who wants to, more power to them..for people with larger balances this can be a little insurance for them..if they don't mind the potential fees that can occur in the event.

Now as you stated,,,no one is perfect..(well the banks are according to some)..

- I don't think anyone has ever said that the banks are perfect.  But the vast majority of reports on here do not involve bank error.  They involve a lack of management on the account holders part.

Agreed..very few involve bank error, and some have..I am one for example with the defective ATM. Now I can concede that as you state they "involve" a lack of management on the account holders part, even in many cases....but do some of the excessive additional fees and banks tactics, manipulations, misleading terminology and policies not share any involvement at all according to you and the few other defenders? Apparently someone agreed as the banks are finally starting to change some policies which will better protect us..and probably much to their disappointment.

No one is asking the bank for anything unreasonable..other then to become what they once were..a safe place to keep our money. If people mess up..the bank will still have plenty of opportunity to fee them to kingdom come..just with more fair and reasonable terms.

Quote from myself in my earlier post:

''Shall we expect US Bank to follow suit? Well if precedence is any indicator, look at how all banks followed suit when they all started implementing these ripoff practices.''

Not surprisingly, one day later, of course US Bank has fallen in line, lock step with the others, as the Overdraft Fee house of cards continues to come a tumbling down.

That's right. I said it.

Overdrafting your account should be a considered a crime.

Now, before all the heated responses flare up, let me explain my position. 99% of all overdrafters did it to themselves. They overdrafted their account intentionally out of a blantant disregard for the rules or through their own negligence. Every time I go into my local USB branch, there's some piece of drugged up ghetto trash making a scene about overdrafts THAT THEY CAUSED. That's typically the class of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers. 

Well, let me tell you something, chronic and intentional overdrafts of the world, YOU ARE COSTING GOOD CUSTOMERS LIKE ME MONEY. It's a well known fact that the more a customer leaves their account in the negative, the more likely it is that the customer isn't going to replenish it. Thus, the bank has to make up for this loss by passing it on to good customers. This means higher interest rates on loans and credit cards, and less money paid to the customer on CD's, checking accounts and savings accounts.

USB offers many ways for the average customer to check their balance. You've got a call center, their website, their branches, ATM's, text and email alerts. All of those options are free and all of them, with the exception of going into a branch, are available 24 hours a day. USB also offers many forms of overdraft protection at a nominal fee. My credit line costs me NOTHING unless I have to have it activate; then it's just few cents per day.

Overdrafters, YOU ARE OUT OF EXCUSES. It's easy; check your balance before you spend. If you can't follow this one simple rule, I'd advise not having an account.

Quote from I am the law c/o the Kangaroo Court:

''That's typically the class of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers.''

Well that's just great! The executive big whigs at all of these banks including US Bank, just made the decision to throw away (B)illions of dollars in profits all for a bunch of 'druggies and losers'? How stupid can those bank executives be? If I'm a shareholder, SELL, SELL, SELL!

No need for any heated responses. Enjoying you doing a much better job on your own.

''It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” (Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln)

"Well, let me tell you something, chronic and intentional overdrafts
of the world, YOU ARE COSTING GOOD CUSTOMERS LIKE ME MONEY. It's a well
known fact that the more a customer leaves their account in the
negative, the more likely it is that the customer isn't going to
replenish it. Thus, the bank has to make up for this loss by passing it
on to good customers. This means higher interest rates on loans and
credit cards, and less money paid to the customer on CD's, checking
accounts and savings accounts."Well I would like to meet some of these "chronic overdrafters" you speak of..but I imagine there are many. Well the banks took in over 38 BILLION...yes I said BILLION with a "B" in 09 from these fees..and these fees were paid by overdrafters..so I guess anyone who ever had incurred an overdraft owes YOU an apology for costing a good customer like you money....yeah..the bank "loss" was due to overdrafting...what planet are you living on bro????? Trust me the banks took more from you in tax dollars (I guess you can call it an "un authorized loan") then it will cost you from the people who overdrafted and had to pay 38 billion dollars for it...regardless of the reason they incurred an overdraft..the bank could care less. But their gravy train is soon approaching it's last stop."Overdrafters, YOU ARE OUT OF EXCUSES. It's easy; check your balance
before you spend. If you can't follow this one simple rule, I'd advise
not having an account."

"Overdrafting your account should be a considered a crime".

Okay..so tell the banks to stop not only allowing it...and encouraging it..and if you can't see how they are encouraging it..you are more ignorant that this entire post is.

"Now, before all the heated responses flare up, let me explain my
position. 99% of all overdrafters did it to themselves. They
overdrafted their account intentionally out of a blantant disregard for
the rules or through their own negligence. Every time I go into my
local USB branch, there's some piece of drugged up ghetto trash making
a scene about overdrafts THAT THEY CAUSED. That's typically the class
of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers."

This one is so ignorant, pompous and presumptuous that it doesn't even deserve a reply..but I feel obligated...

Now..you state here "they overdrafted their account intentionally out of a blatant disregard for the rules"

Can you kindly list these rules that states someone is not allowed to overdraft? Can you demonstrate any reports posted here where if a customer did overdraft with intent..that they do not take responsibility for it and have no problem paying the fee..for the legitimate overdrafts..you know...the ones brought on by the banks new tactics which ARE what the rip off reports are regarding..no one is asking for a free ride here. I am sorry if you live in an area where your branch is full of druggies and losers..if that is the case you have a much bigger problem then being so concerned about their overdrating..wouldn't you say???

"USB offers many ways for the average customer to check their
balance. You've got a call center, their website, their branches,
ATM's, text and email alerts. All of those options are free and all of
them, with the exception of going into a branch, are available 24 hours
a day. USB also offers many forms of overdraft protection at a nominal
fee. My credit line costs me NOTHING unless I have to have it activate;
then it's just few cents per day."

You come in here swinging with your "druggies and losers"..and then make a statement like this? Have you EVER actually read a SINGLE report here. The "call center" and the "website" and the ATMs..are proven untrustworthy and unreliable...and unarguably the number one cause of the rip off reports as witnessed coming here on an hourly basis. Are you living in a cave or something? About the ONLY thing the banks statement are good for..is checking for fraudulent activity...and then that whole battle begins. That paragraph was beyond ignorance..no words can describe that one..it's beyond any term I can think of.

Yes...by coming onto this site and acting like an angry jackass..and throwing insults and innuendo around haphazardly...I am sure all the "druggies and losers" are going to listen to your advice...yeah...okay..

I have a better idea....since I can't say for sure which poster was a druggie or a loser..but your bank branch is ceiling high in them..why don't you go there and give your advice..maybe they feel bad about all the money they cost you.

First Ronny..While I don't usually like to give too personal information, but if you think it is pertnant a bit more information on your question as it probably can be used as a learning experience.

Regardless..when did you overdraft? - Late 90's

What was the circumstances and your banks policies at the time? - Similar but can not tell you if they are exact to now.  That is I knew they cover up to a certain amount as a "courtesy", but didn't know all of the in's and out's of it.  As a result I got "hit" with several overdraft fees over about a week. 

Did you incur any fees on transactions that had the funds at the time of the transactions? - Yes at least as far as I remember, because even then I knew you shouldn't spend more than you have.  It wasn't so much Debit Card(they were just starting to come into use) but ATM and Checks

Had you been opted out of OD protection would you have avoided a fee or any additional fees associated..or would it have made no difference?  - Honestly couldn't tell you as 1) I didn't opt out and can't even remember if I was ever told that was an option because 2) It was quite a while ago.

Would a register have prevented it? - 100% Yes.

or a shady merchant placed charges on the card the the so called protection allowed..and instead of the bank coming to the defense of their customer when disputed..just added a whole bunch more fees...so in that case...why would a person not feel victimized?

- Ronny would it be nice if the bank came to your defense in the case of a merchant..Of course.  Is it a RipOff if they don't..NO.  Your issue is with the merchant and if they did something wrong that caused any fees they should be held 100% responsible for ALL fees incurred.  Just as if the bank makes a mistake they should be held accountable for all fees as well.  And yes I do have problems with banks when they make an legitimate(I mean outside their terms) error and only refund the fee as a direct cause of the error and not the others that were caused as well.

Now Edward.  Time will tell what effect these changes will have.  Will there be less people getting fees...probably.  Will that be a significant number..doubtfull.  Because, all it does is give the person another option for their account making them MORE accountable.  If you really think this is any admission by the banks that they were wrong, then their PR departments are really on their toes.

If anything this is going to make it harder for any suits or claims because they are coming right out and giving the person the option to opt-in or opt-out.  So not not only are they signing saying that they agree to the terms of the account.  But they are in addition saying that they either do or do not want this Overdraft courtesy.  If they opt-in then it is going to be next to impossible for any lawyer to make a legitimate argument that they didn't know.  If they opt-out the bank is covered because it only covers them if they are currently at $0, and has been shown that can not be guaranteed. 

And yes I even read where Wachovia(Wells Fargo) is going to stop charging any overdraft fees on people who overdraft by less than $5.  Again that is great but I can guarantee you that a majority of the people that overdraft do so by more than $5.  So this will stop the fees of the people who do make an occasional error in their register, but will do nothing to the cronic overdrafter who has no idea how much they have or are are spending.  Again a good PR move but in reality does not change the problem when the account holder is not responsible.

Even though you could not remember some of the pertinent details of your overdrafting circumstance..I appreciate your honest and sincere effort, and it did in my opinion ad validity to your previous statement.

Now I don't need to speak for Edward...but something you stated actually concurs what he has implied to you...

"And yes I even read where Wachovia(Wells Fargo) is going to stop charging any overdraft fees on people who overdraft by less than $5.  Again that is great but I can guarantee you that a majority of the people that overdraft do so by more than $5.  So this will stop the fees of the people who do make an occasional error in their register, but will do nothing to the cronic overdrafter who has no idea how much they have or are are spending.  Again a good PR move but in reality does not change the problem when the account holder is not responsible."

Myself and Edward have both stated this as well. And it is the reason you do not have to be too concerned. The chronic overdrafter...and it is safe to assume they will not understand any of their part in it..nor take any steps such as opting out of overdraft protection..the one defense that may actually help them hold on to their money..  will continue to accrue excessive fees..and regardless of where they complain..and whomever to..it will evidently be their own fault. I hope you never got the impression that I want the banks to be responsible for chronic overdrafters..I just want fairness in T&C..and better protection against fraud and error. I see too many reports here that assuming the poster is being forthright..that the bank in many cases share much of the blame...as evident by the fact that the bank is starting to change some policies.

Surely you do not believe the banks are doing ANY of this to better protect chronic overdrafters..which is their bread and butter right now. The problem was you could say that many innocent customers were caught unfairly in the cross fire..and many did NOT deserve the many fees they had to pay..and the fact that the banks proved to not to be a very safe place to keep our money..nor to trust in them. Their tactics proved or will be proved to be unfair, misleading and perhaps unethical and questionably legal...bottom line. And you don't have to take myself or Edwards word for it..just read the newspapers.

Robert, you are exactly right the new voluntary bank policy changes will make it difficult for new lawsuits in the future. But with respect to the current class-action lawsuits already filed, how can the banks argue their policies were not unfair, when they now have changed those same policies?

One current case often referenced as a benchmark is Gutierrez vs Wells Fargo. For this case, the Including-And-Deleting Class represents deceptive online information. The Re-Sequencing Class represents largest first posting order. The lawyers had a good thing going for both groups, but then they got greedy and tried to up the anty and change the rules in the middle of the game for the first class group. Here are quotes from the Judges official ruling:

''...plaintiffs’ expert assumed that every time any customer accessed his or her account online, or via an ATM, or in person (by visiting a teller window), he or she would have then learned and relied on the then available balance....It is easy to use an ATM without obtaining one’s balance. It is easy to make a teller transaction without obtaining the balance. It is possible to consult an account online for reasons other than obtaining one’s balance''

''This claim was originally sold to the Court as one in which the bank customer consulted the available balance between steps 1 and 2, noticed that a specific item had been subtracted, and then later consulted the available balance between steps 2 and 3 and relied on it without realizing that it looked larger than it really was due to the backed-out items. Now, however, plaintiffs seek to skip the first part and to broaden the claim to depositors who merely consulted the online balance between steps 2 and 3, whether or not they consulted it between steps 1 and 2. The damage study thus wholly ignores the very scenario that formed the basis for class certification.''

''For all of the foregoing reasons, the including-and-deleting class is hereby DECERTIFIED and shall not proceed as a class claim.''

The plaintiff lawyers over reached by trying to broaden the scope of who might be affected from their original claim. The ruling had nothing to do with a check register or lack of customer responsibility. It was the fault of the lawyers. Then the Judge upheld the certification of the second class group and that class-action suit is still moving forward. For the first class group, had the lawyers stuck with their original claim and not over reached in the middle of the game, it's likely that BOTH class-action suits would still be in progress. And think about how that case is impacted now with the banks backing out of a lot of those very policies in question in the case.

Personal politics aside, defenders of overdrafters, if the bank was really set up to make the average person overdraft, why haven't they gotten me?

Simple: Because I check my balance before I spend my money. Obviously you people don't do that. Trust me, conspiracy theorists, there's no maniacal mastermind at USB manipulating the system so that you can't avoid overdrafting.  

Take responsibility, people. We're talking third grade math here.

Ok, so we've got someone saying that USB's automated phone line, ATM's,and website post incorrect balances intentionally. 

Let's visit Imaginationland for just a moment and pretend that this statement is even close to being true. (cough, cough) That would mean that USB would be committing a FEDERAL CRIME thousands of times a day. Do you have any concept of what kind of fine that would incur? Do you realize how this bank would be punished by the SEC? Rest assured, it would bankrupt US Bank.

P.S. A note to our author friend... any company would most likely change their name when they get bought out. There's nothing sinister involved there.

 

 

 

Gee, I'm sorry, Edward. I didn't know that you were so sensitive about the plight of the downtrodden USB customer.

Think what you want about me, but at least I still have every dollar that I've put into my account. No overdrafts here because I'm a responsible person who doesn't spend what I don't have in my account. Whine all you like about your bank conspiracy theories, it won't change a thing and never will. Personally, I hope the fees get higher so I, as a model customer, can enjoy more free services while you intentional overdrafters get sued back to the Stone Age for blatantly mismanaging your account.

It's amazing to me that these same degenerate overdrafters will spend hours, perhaps days, researching things like finding the best loan rates or trying to find the best deal on groceries, but they won't spend THIRTY SECONDS checking their balance before they blow all of their money on something (probably cheap booze or crack).

Overdrafters, you lose.  

 

There are no conspiracy theories..and I don't know who you think is defending blatant overdrafters or drunks, degenerates and crack addicts, so I think you may be posting in the wrong place. This report is regarding a bank taking too long to clear a known good check from a renter,  and the resulting excessive fees that are related to the banks tactics. (I said T-A-C-T-I-C-S.. NOT CONSPIRACY).

I didn't see any evidence this POSTING is from a chronic habitual overdrafter or degenerate..are you seeing things or has your imagination gone off the deep end? Why are you so hateful and angry...bullied as a child perhaps?

If you think posting here and throwing tirades and insults around gives you any credibility..well I wonder what is burning in your pipe? Because I have yet to see anyone in here defending crack heads. Do crackheads even have renters and computers and internet service? I would think they would have pawned them for drugs..or perhaps they are hanging out at your bank branch..if I were you I would save your money and move out of crack town. Maybe that's why you are so uptight and think everyone who has ever incurred an overdraft is a loser.

So you have never overdrafted (so you say..you come off as a bit delusional and whack)..perhaps you want a medal of honor?

Ronny G,

I'm perfectly calm. I'm not angry, I'm just stating the facts. Someone would have to be under the influence of something if they're warned of a danger and then they blatantly and intentionally put themselves at risk.

Here's an example that I could compare to the average overdrafter's stupidity. Let's say the county dug a hole in the street for fixing the sewer line. They put up signs and whatever to warn you of that danger. They knock on your door and tell you about the hole. They make you sign a document that says that you were informed of the danger. You sign it and go about your business.

Later on, you are walking down the street and intentionally fall into the hole. You break your leg. You get a lawyer and try to sue the county for your injury. The case is dismissed because of the county putting up warning signs and because of the document that you signed stating that you were informed about the hole.

The same situation applies here. The bank tells you their funds availability, they tell you their fee structure, they tell you their cut off points for deposits. YOU SIGNED A LEGAL DOCUMENT STATING THAT YOU READ, UNDERSTAND, AND AGREE TO ALL TERMS OF THE ACCOUNT. In addition, this bank has multiple ways to inform you of your balance and multiple forms of overdraft protection (like the signs in my example). You have no case. You lost. Admit fault, pay the fee and move on with your life. No one shoved you into the hole!

Can we please get one thing straight?

Deposited checks DO NOT AND MOST LIKELY NEVER WILL clear the same day that you deposit them. The only current deviation to that is if the bank makes a one time exception manually. (Some banks do this for tax refund checks if you stop in a branch and deposit it that way.) Checks shouldn't clear the same day, as the bank needs 24 business hours to confirm that the check is good. (Silly me, I'd like to confirm that it's a good check before I start spending that money. But obviously the intentional overdrafters of the world think that that's unreasonable.) Very large checks take more time than that. By law, the bank has to tell you how long that will be.

If you negligent overdrafters would refer to the terms and agreement book THAT YOU SIGNED FOR, you'll notice that this policy is clearly stated. 

To I am the law from the Kangaroo Court,

I see where you have branched out from your precious US Bank threads and started to add your $.02 to other bank threads now, such as National City, Bank of America and others. Here's a quote from you earlier on this thread:

''It's amazing to me that these same degenerate overdrafters will spend hours, perhaps days, researching things like finding the best loan rates or trying to find the best deal on groceries, but they won't spend THIRTY SECONDS checking their balance before they blow all of their money on something (probably cheap booze or crack).''

That was actually quite a good line. I give you credit. But in return let me say it's amazing how a bank supporter can spend all of this wasted time arguing with so called negligent, dead beat, druggie, loser customers.

I hope you sent in your comments and suggestions during the Request For Comment period by the Federal Reserve for their proposed regulation changes. I hope you have written letters to your Congress rep. I hope you have written letters to Richard Davis (CEO of US Bank) and all of the other bank Execs, advising them how dumb they must be to throw away (B)illions of dollars in profits by cancelling their predatory overdraft fee policies.

Your posts are very provoking and insulting..as well as presumptuous. And..you are defending the banks regarding chronic overdrafters and completely ignoring how the banks tactics are actually encouraging overdrafts, and often this can negatively effect honest decent people..not every overdrafter is a junkie or an idiot.

Now I agree..if someone intentionally overdrafts and was to be charged the overdraft fee has provided by the banks "service"..and a massive bucket of additional fees brought on by manipulations, re-sequencing etc...and then does it again..your analogy with the hole makes sense.

But what if lets say..the county digs a hole and put up a sign. (which a sign and knocking on your door is not quite the way the banks explains how their tactics work to their customers..nor when the banks makes changes are customers always aware) but regardless for this example we will assume. With the banks and judging by all these complaints..it appears many people are not aware of the consequences of the banks actions (with deceptive terminology for example "Protection" and "courtesy" and available etc) until it is too late.

So since the example I will use is not regarding chronic overdrafters..or junkies..I will apply this to MOST of the people who report to this sight..it is more like that bank is digging holes all over the place..deep ones, moving them around..forcing you to enroll in their "hole protection" service"..and then when you fall in one they blame you, and in addition...throw a bunch of boulders on top once you fall in one of the holes. Now they didn't put up a sign really..but yes they gave you a T&C booklet 5 years ago which tell you that you have "hole protection" and encourage you to check online all the time..where they are consistently changing the locations of where they dug said holes.

Now maybe because you are so perfect and nothing unforeseen ever happens to you..and you can understand every bit of the legal mumbo jumbo in your banks contracts, and you never made an error or had a merchant do something shady and the bank didn't "protect" jack sh*t...well until this happens to you..you won't truly get the point. But it is important if you are going to comment or offer advice to help..that you base said replies on reality..and on the topic..which is NOT chronic overdrafters or the drug addicts and drunk trailer trash that you always see in your bank branch.

And in closing..you should note that just because someone signed a document..does not always make everything legal...and which may be why the banks are starting to "voluntarily" (with a little "encouragement" from Congress and the President), change some policies. Because the banks are not stupid..they know damn well the gravy train is quickly approaching it's last stop..and some polices may or WILL be proved unlawful and/or unethical..making said "legal" contract about as useful as toilet paper. Mark my words on this..read the papers once in a while.

Well to many it is becoming apparent that "consistency" is the banks enemy. Because the more inconsistencies and changes they make..of course in all logic the better the chance for an overdraft to occur..and make the banks money.

What I don't really understand is with the speed that electricity travels..that why can't checks clear instantly? For example when I insert a customers check in my reader..if the check is good, it clears..if not..it is declined..this transaction and verification take seconds.

Now how long would it really take the bank if they so choose..to verify the check deposit with the bank it is from..and clear it instantly..or decline it if it is NSF? As well..if the check is post dated that would be a reason to "hold" it..however they don't..regardless of the date..they process it.

What I have noticed by several reports here..and it makes you go "hmmmm..." is if you have a fraudulent check..they cash it on the spot. But with a paycheck..nope..got to wait for it to clear. I know with most checks I deposit in my bank..they clear in a day..2 max...but sometimes longer...inconsistency..remember it is good for the bank and not for us..and 99.9% of the time..everything works out in the banks favor only...hmmm.

In regards to I am the Law's comments, you stated.

Now maybe because you are so perfect and nothing unforeseen ever happens to you..and you can understand every bit of the legal jumbo in your banks contracts,

- Personally if you were to quiz me(and most people) on ALL of the "legal jumbo" people probably wouldn't do so well.  However, at least I know enough to know that you are not supposed to spend more than is available.  If I do I am subject to various fees.  If I don't agree with the fees than I don't spend more than is available.  If people would grab that basic concept 95% of the issues would go away almost overnight.

"or had a merchant do something shady and the bank didn't "protect" jack sh*t"

- Again that is a problem with the MERCHANT.  In a perfect world it be great if every bank had an entire department that did nothing but stick up for the consumer in the case where the consumer claims a mistake.  But if you know of a bank that does this please let us know.  I believe we are still waiting on your list of banks that don't resequence transactions or hold deposits.

This "protection" argument is like having a car wash scratch your new car.  Is it your fault that the car got scratched..NO.  Is it something you intentionally did..NO.  Did the dealer cause the problem..NO.  But you blame the dealer, because they are making you pay $350 to have it fixed when you think it is under warranty.  Even though there is fine print that states that scratches are not covered, you still blame the dealer for not coming to your defense against the car wash. 

and some polices may or WILL be proved unlawful and/or unethical..making said "legal" contract about as useful as toilet paper. Mark my words on this.

- They are so marked.  I do like the "outs" you gave yourself.  Not only saying that they may, but in saying some policies.  You don't even need this to happen at all, or if it does all you need is a couple and you could consider that statement true.   Gee your almost sounding like a politician.  Perhaps you should actually make a run for an office, running on this platform.  If there are as many people "suffering" at the hand of the "evil" bank as you think you may win by a landslide.

As to your comments about "checks clearing".  It is not inconsistant and you actually have misused a very common term that a lot of people do confuse.  It can take a bank anywhere from 10-14 days to "clear" a check, especially ones through different Federal Reserve Branches.   But banks are required through the Expedited Funds Availability Act to make the funds "available" within specific times.  Before this act came into play there was actually was no standard and it was very inconsistant.  This is where the scams come in.  They know that a bank must make the funds available several days before a check would actually clear.  If you pull the EFAA up and watch your accounts and when your checks clear, you will find that the bank is following the guidelines on a very consistant basis.  Keep in mind the guidelines take into account the Federal Reserve Branch of the bank, the type of check and the amount of the check, as well as a couple other factors that they do list.  You also have to take into account weekends and holidays that do not count, as well as the cut-off time for deposits at your bank.  Which is probably where you are seeing the "inconsistancy".  But with the exception of the cut-off time has nothing to do with your bank but the banking regulations that ALL banks must follow.

As to why they don't clear deposits instantly.  Well your fraudulent check comment explains that.  The number of people trying to scam this "instant" clearing would make these fake check scams look like child's play.

Not unlike I am the Law..posting here about intentional and chronic overdrafting when  the subject is regarding anything but.

As far a merchants..the bank would not need an entire department to sick up for customers..all they need to do is change a few simple policies to better protect their customers money..like they used to do. I remember several years ago my friend and I were out very late at night living it up. He was using his debit card..it was Sunday morning..and an employee from the club we were at tells my friend he has a phone call. So I was like "who the hell knows we are here?" Ends up it was his bank calling to make sure everything was okay..imagine that? Someone at the bank on a Sunday morning was there to protect his money...

I stated in another post I will not list banks here until or if I am defrauded..I have my reasons..but any person can ask the bank or credit unions questions..the key is by reading all these reports and reading the papers..watching the news..they will now know the right questions to ask..and see if the financial institution is really protecting their money..or out to take it ALL. My current bank claims not to re order a single transaction..all will be posted as they are processed..I just got the debit card. If they do not stick to their word..or change any policies mid stream as others have done..it will quickly be reported here.

The car scratch analogy bears no reality to what the banks are supposed to do to protect our money. Unless...if the car wash scratched the car, and the dealership charged to fix the scratch.. then charged to fix 10 more scratches..then I would say it is a fair analogy. And the dealer does nothing to encourage scratching the car..and it is common sense that physical damage is not covered under any standard warranty Robert..we are not talking about things people should know because they are so apparent and obvious..we are talking about things that people are unaware of until it is too late..and things that happened by no fault of their own, and the bank taking no real effort to explain some consequences..but do plenty to encourage overdrafting..and any tactics they can use to maximize fees..you really don't understand this..or simply choose not to? What is your true motive Robert?

The reason I used the word "may" or "will" is because I believe the bank "may" wiggle out of some of the charges..or a technicality may hurt the plaintiffs case...but you are the one playing word games again...and digging though every nuance with a microscope in hope of the bank defenders "holy grail"...a contradiction. Regardless..it changes nothing..it does not change the fact that the banks are CURRENTLY changing some policies ..and it does nothing to prevent the lawsuits from occurring..and it does nothing to help anyone to avoid possible financial loss..so if it is just a feeble attempt to discredit me...well we will let the people decide..a handful of bank defenders vs..thousands of reports...odds stacked a little against you..and the banks apparently.

I understand what you explained about the check clearing...but it's still a little confusing...I hate checks altogether..it should go the way of the dinosaurs in my opinion..no real need for them anymore..at least I feel that way. But for some people I guess they trust mailing and depositing a check rather then other faster forms..or cash..so be it..they may eventually pay a price for it.

As far as your last statement...

"As to why they don't clear deposits instantly.  Well your fraudulent check comment explains that.  The number of people trying to scam this "instant" clearing would make these fake check scams look like child's play."

Strange thing is I have read several reports stating the banks instantly cash bogus checks..and the customers got financially rocked in so many ways because of it.

Now what I do not understand in this regard..is if the check is verified and cleared through electronic processes..then if it is fraud and was still cleared..why would it be discovered days later and not as soon as it submitted for verification? What goes on while the check deposit is "held" that is going to make a difference..other then increasing the potential for overdrafts to occur? Maybe I am overlooking something here?

Ronny G, is this a serious statement?

"..you should note that just because someone signed a document..does not always make everything legal.."

Sure, if it's for a contract killing or something. USB is not breaking any laws with their contracts. In fact, opening an account for a customer and not making them sign the terms and agreement document would be illegal. So, too bad Mr. Overdrafts, you made your bed, now sleep in it. Try your "just because I signed for it doesn't make it legal" mumbo jumbo on your mortgage company and watch them boot you out of your home. Do you know anything about basic contract law?

Also, you asked why checks can't clear instantly. Seriously? You're actually asking this? Ok, my friend, let me ask you this. How could the bank possibly predict that some other transaction (possibly a larger one) won't offset the account in the same business day? Answer: they can't. Banks do not have people on staff with the ability to predict the future.

If you don't know basic math, don't have an account. It's that easy, it's that cheesy.

Robert, Pardon the interruption, but just a few quick points.

1) Merchant Disputes. Surprisingly Bank of America is one bank in particular that will stick up for the consumer, when the merchant is at fault. At least they used to when I banked there. Simply file a dispute with the bank and they immediately credit back the charges and fees in question until the dispute process is completed. If the dispute is upheld and you're determined not to be at fault, nothing else needs to be done, because you already received your own money back ahead of time. If the dispute determines the customer was indeed at fault, then they deduct the charges and fees again. Case closed.

Now that's customer service if you ask me. Especially since you're holding my money. I'm entrusting you with my money for safe keeping. Robert, if you give an evelope full of cash to your friend to hold for you, and then that friend willingly gives up that cash to a stranger, who do you take to court and sue, the stranger or your friend? Who's responsibility was it to hold your cash for you?

2) Re-sequencing. Right now it's a confirmed list of one bank that does not do this. Although the footnote is, they haven't started yet. Chase Bank has announced that in the first quarter of next year, they will return to the practice of posting items in the order they are received. And if we're to believe that all banks are the same because they all copy each other, then it's a matter of time for the others, right?

People frequently ask me on ROR why I'm so tough on overdrafters.

Basically, it's because they're one of the many types of people in this country that don't accept responsibility for their actions. They blame someone else for their stupidity. It's frankly sickening.

Don't you get tired of hearing...

"I do drugs because my parents abused me."

or

"I can't pay attention to my finances right now because of work stress."

or

"I act this way because I have Oppositional Defiant Disorder, not because I'm a bad person."

or

"I didn't overdraft! There's some person at USB secretly manipulating the records so I can't get a correct balance." (see how dumb that sounds?)

Whatever. Good, hardworking people like me are sick to death of supporting you out of control social leeches. Every time you get an overdraft and then permanently leave your account negative, that effects me. See, the bank will try to recoup those lost funds from their current customers in some way. They'll pay less interest on CD's and savings accounts, jack up rates on loans, credit cards and mortgages, and impose fees for regular services. So, wouldn't you be upset if someone's actions cost you money?

I don't really know what your motive is Mr. lover of bank policies..but as far as I understand..it is not a crime to overdraft...so stop making the stupid analogies about drug addicts and other nonsense..it's a waste of space.

The banks are changing polices...ever wonder why? As far as any other deception, manipulations or whatever they do unethical..shady..or as yet to be seen questionably "legal"...we will let the courts and congress make the final decision. I can't  determine the legal outcomes..I can only state what I feel the banks are doing wrong in some cases..and I can state the fact that the banks ARE starting to change some policies to be more fair and hopefully to protect our money better..especially for low income and people who have recent hardship due to the economic crisis...and your nonsense certainly holds no bearing whatsoever.

Yes..checks can be verified instantly rocket scientist. We have the technology..the banks just don't use it to our benefit.

So let me save you from typing...

It is established..if you spend more then you have in the bank..you get an overdraft fee if the bank covers it....so no need to keep reminding everyone of the obvious.

We all know this juice box so enough already. Nobody ever argued this fact as far as I have seen.  Your skull is too thick..or you are not reading posts but just coming here to make yourself look like a tool.

I will respond to your responses directed at me...

"..you should note that just because someone signed a document..does not always make everything legal.."

Sure, if it's for a contract killing or something. USB is not breaking any laws with their contracts. In fact, opening an account for a customer and not making them sign the terms and agreement document would be illegal. So, too bad Mr. Overdrafts, you made your bed, now sleep in it. Try your "just because I signed for it doesn't make it legal" mumbo jumbo on your mortgage company and watch them boot you out of your home. Do you know anything about basic contract law?

You missed the point of my statement..either by choice..or ignorance. Now I am not the one that compared the banks T&C to a hit contract..or a mortgage..you did...but ANY contract that has terms proved to be in violation of the law..can and often does become null and void in the eyes of the law...so perhaps you need to do some research. Now if the banks a deemed innocent of any wrongdoings..that is one thing..but the fact that changes are starting to be made by the banks that better favor the customer would imply to any reasonable person that there is good reason for it to be happening now..would you not agree?

"Also, you asked why checks can't clear instantly. Seriously? You're actually asking this? Ok, my friend, let me ask you this. How could the bank possibly predict that some other transaction (possibly a larger one) won't offset the account in the same business day? Answer: they can't. Banks do not have people on staff with the ability to predict the future."

Actually if you go back and read what I really asked..and this time read it enough until you can comprehend the question...was.. what is going on while the check is being "held".

"If you don't know basic math, don't have an account. It's that easy, it's that cheesy."

Okay Mickey Mouse...why not post stuff like this on a report where the poster claims they intentionally overdrafted..or where a math error caused the overdraft..what is the relevance of stating the obvious here when it is not the topic of discussion or debate? Now that to me..seems easy.

In your last post you stated this at the end...


"Whatever. Good, hardworking people like me are sick to death of supporting you out of control social leeches. Every time you get an overdraft and then permanently leave your account negative, that effects me. See, the bank will try to recoup those lost funds from their current customers in some way. They'll pay less interest on CD's and savings accounts, jack up rates on loans, credit cards and mortgages, and impose fees for regular services. So, wouldn't you be upset if someone's actions cost you money?"


I feel this needs addressing..as it is probably one of the most arrogant and IGNORANT statements I have ever heard..even coming from you. Let me ask you..where do you get this information from? Have you ever actually read ANYTHING? Or just live in fantasy land where anything you make up in your mind..is somehow a fact...

Lets break this down line by line...

The first line seems to imply that anyone who has ever had an overdraft is assumed not to be hardworking..and somehow you are supporting them? And they are some kind of social leeches? Do you think overdraft protection is some form of publicly funded welfare? You are seriously brain damaged my friend..do you wear a sheet and a hood as your work uniform? first of all...since you seem to be getting all your information from "the white trash daily"..the banks have PROFITED quite nicely off overdraft fees...projected to be well over 38 billion dollars this year alone..does that sound like a loss to you?

However..if you are a taxpayer and NOT societies leech..you pay taxes right? Well how do you feel about your part in the 700 BILLION dollar bailout that we the people had to "lend" to the bank..seems in reality the banks are asking for "welfare" since they made some poor business decisions and "overextended" themselves a little..wouldn't you agree?....but that to you is okay?  Someone who overdrafts is a leech?

Your next brilliant line stating "every time you get an overdraft and then permanently leave your account negative, that effects me"...is this really a problem? I mean if it is I have never heard about this anywhere on the ripoff reports..so where is the data to back this up? You see..if you ever actually read or understood most of these reports..not only are they willing to make good and pay the fees for overdrafting..but most have direct deposit these days..the banks are getting the money whether you wanted to pay them or not. Another thing you need to consider is most of the money the banks are charging...ARE not actually anything they are laying out....but just excessive fees...the banks are not actually "losing" any money if a customer bails...they just are not going to collect the fees at all...or may collect them in the future by taking the customer to court of other measures.

Now as far as the "type" of people you use an an example all the time..and is NOT the type of person I have ever came to the defense of..is these so called junkie drunk loser chronic leech overdrafters...okay..so lets assume all the banks are filled with these types..and not just yours. So...what is your solution??? Shoot them all? In what world that you live in thinks by coming onto a forum like this..and then calling the people who report here insulting names..and then talking about freeloaders and chronic overdrafters when the posters displayed no evidence of this being the case..well how is this going to help save "you" all this money you think you are losing at your bank? I don't see a point to your actions..and your words here do nothing but make you sound like an old angry fool from the 50's or 60s....like you are still fighting commies or hippies or something..you need some help buddy.


"See, the bank will try to recoup those lost funds from their current customers in some way."

Again..what lost funds? Seems to me they are making money. Now if they are having all these problems with druggies and losers at YOUR bank branch..perhaps the bank needs to use better judgment on who they are handing out debit cards to. Most people can handle them fine. Many people that lodge reports here did nothing with intent to cause all the fees..they just didn't understand the way the bank operates...or that some manipulations, error, fraud or polices and tactics changed that contributed to an overdraft, and many additional excessive fees ..and they feel ripped off...which the very definition of a rip off is when someone feels they were charged more then they should be...does that make someone a drug addict or a loser? I guess it does to you because you see the world as all these leeches out to get you...but the banks are the ones leeching much worse.


"They'll pay less interest on CD's and savings accounts, jack up rates on loans, credit cards and mortgages, and impose fees for regular services. So, wouldn't you be upset if someone's actions cost you money?"

A lot of bank customers are upset..because the BANKS actions are costing them so much money as well.

Now try to understand this..I will type this very slowly...

It is fact MOST people are going to pay the fees and stay with the bank..or just go to another. Many people will learn their lesson..and many people that report here have only had this happen to them once or twice..they are not looking to rip off the bank..and they are working people and business owners, not welfare recipients.

Now..if you are REALLY so concerned about your CD's and savings account....how is this for a plan...

Instead of the banks charging so many fees to these so called intentional habitual drug addicted overdrafters...why not instead of manipulations and re-sequencing (which BTW if you read..you will note banks are going to stop this soon)..then they can pay the fee for the legitimate overdraft..and they won't be forced to leave the bank due to owing them way more money in "FEES" then they will ever be able to repay..would that not be a little help?

As far as someone who CHOOSES to enroll in "courtesy" overdraft..then abuses it with INTENT to rip off the bank...well that person is a criminal..agreed. So..what is your solution to stop all these criminals from ripping off the bank and causing your precious interest rates to be lowered? And what does that have to do with any of these ripoff reports..unless you are reading some imaginary ones from the ripoff report in fantasy land??

Now I understand your are very upset...and you may have a right to be..but why take it out on the wrong parties?

Fine, Ronny G, live in your fantasy world.

For all your talk and all of your insulting, it comes down to one thing: overdrafters 99.99% of the time made their own prison and its detriment to the bank effects everyone. The nearest thing I could compare that to is shoplifting. When items get stolen from the store, the store jacks up the prices for customers to cover their loss. Yes, the store obviously still generates a profit, just like the bank does when they get taken advantage of by the intentional overdrafters of the world. But still, that loss is passed on. If you can't admit this, whatever, that's your problem.

Second, if USB was really manipulating the system to force people to overdraft, why haven't I gotten one? The easy answer to that question is is that I pay attention to my available balance. But, you obviously can't grow up and accept responsibility for when you screw up. When people make mistakes, they should own up to them...

Case in point. About four years ago, I was involved in a minor fender bender. Thankfully, no one was hurt and it was just one of those "act of God" things. Much to my dismay, it took this incident to make me realize that I have neglected to put collision coverage on my policy. I got stuck with a $4300 bill. It was my fault for not paying attention to what I was signing up for. That being said, you don't see me filing a ROR on Geico screaming and whining about starting a class action suit or calling them evil, now do you?

Kind of puts your pathetic little overdraft fees into perspective, doesn't it?

 

 

Stop the resequencing argument, intentional overdrafters; it's moot.

Let's get a few things straight.

1. USB does and should take all your transactions in the day and post them in this order: Credits first, then high debits to low debits.

2. This isn't done to hurt the customer.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, let me explain why USB and any other bank (as far as I know) does this. First of all, I can't see anyone arguing posting credits first. If you do, you need your head examined. Second, larger debits are typically more important than smaller ones. Can we agree on that? So, if you don't have enough money in your account and a large number of debits trying to post, eventually the bank will stop accepting them and start turning them away. That being said, if your account was short, wouldn't you rather have your mortgage payment go through first versus a $10 check you wrote to the grocery store? Granted, because people have many more small debits than large ones, this can cause more fees than if it was sequenced small to large debits. Still, having a roof over my head is more important to me than whatever these smaller debits are for.

Final thought: If your account is short, it's short. If you have a sufficient balance in your account, resequencing means nothing. Quit blaming the bank, deadbeats. 

..then why do the banks offer the "service"?  why do they call it a "service"? why do so many banks (but not for much longer) require OD protection as "mandatory'? Why did so many banks not ask the customers if they want this 'service" when they joined the bank. Why did the banks not offer an "opt out"? Why did the banks not have the customer sign specifically for this "service" if the banks look at an overdraft as "pre-authorized"? Why just because you are so special and never overdraft do you assume 99.9% of those who do to be a deadbeat? (Oh I can answer that..you are an ignoramus). Are the banks actually making it ok to "shoplift" from them...encouraging a crime you say??

This would seem to me the bank is encouraging "shoplifting" would it not?

I don't expect an answer from you that makes any sense... as you are an ignoramus..that's right..I called you a name..but it is not meant as an insult alone..it is evident by your words that you are messed up in the head pretty severely.

Now..if the banks did not allow overdrafting...and actually declined a transaction when funds were not available..perhaps this would prevent all the "deadbeats" from overdrafting..since your name calling and presumptions have not seemed to help the problem..right??

Well this is about to happen soon...so enjoy your interest rates while you can. If the banks can't find a way to profit other then fee-ing all the deadbeats into oblivion..then perhaps they need to find another way to make money..right? Besides you are the genius that claims all these deadbeats (none of whom I have EVER seen report here) that abandon the bank with a negative balance..well if the bank didn't allow the deadbeats to overdraft to begin with..would this not be a solution? Or do you think your solution will work....which is??? Calling them deadbeats on ROR is not really working out for you..is it??

And your last post about re-sequencing...get used to the fact that the banks are one by one going to stop that TACTIC...because it is now common knowledge that the re-sequencing..when combined with the BANKS POLICY of FORCED "COURTESY" overdraft protection service...is causing more fees then the junkies and deadbeats expected, and can't afford to cover so they abandon the account..and ruining your interest rates..I mean isn't this what YOU yourself keep implying?

So unless you have a solution other then being Mr. "Holier then thou" know it all...offer something of use..or keep getting served.

You don't know when to quit, do you Ronny G?

Banks don't "allow" overdrafting. The member does it to themselves.

Here's an example. Let's say that you have $100 in your account. You use your debit card to buy something for $90. Obviously, this leaves $10. At the same time, you have an outstanding paper check for $50. This gets presented to the account and presto! A negative $40 account balance. Now explain to me how this is the bank's fault and how the bank "allowed" you to overdraft. (Whether the bank honors the check or not, a fee still incurs.) and by the way Newsflash!: banks can't predict that there's an outstanding paper check until it's presented to the account.

Here's another example. You have $50 dollars in your account. You take someone to a sit down dinner and the waiter brings you your check. It's $45. You give your debit card to the waiter, he runs it for $45. Then, he comes back to your table to give you your card and the receipt to sign. You add a $7 tip on the receipt. (Total, this is $52). So, the transaction pends on your account for $45, but when the restaurant presents their signed receipt to the bank, they get the $52. Again, explain to me how this is the bank's fault and they "allowed" you to overdraft.

I could go on and on with examples, but you see my point. Overdrafts are penalties for a blatant disregard of the available balance. You can whine, scream, file class action lawsuits, and call people names all you like. It doesn't change one thing: confirming your balance before you spend your money is the only way to avoid that fee, (aside from the numerous forms of overdraft protection USB offers.) Don't be fooled, there is no "savior" legislation on the horizon. Do you think the government would cheat themselves out of billions generated by overdraft fees? Overdrafters, you will lose all class action suits, because you agreed to the fee when you opened the account. Fees will only go higher and higher. Ha ha ha! Welcome to the poorhouse you irresponsible cretins!

To I am the law, at the Kangaroo Court:

With your shoplifting example, you have inadvertently clarified the point that myself and Ronny G have made numerous times. Yes, shoplifting is bad and stores lose money when shoplifters make off with items they didn't pay for. Therefore, the stores take every measure and precaution to prevent it, as opposed to encouraging it. That's why that beeping noise goes off when you walk out that door with that item in your pocket. The have every right to be upset when they do lose, because they can say they did everything in their power to prevent it!!

Now let's look at banks. You say the banks are in the same predicament because of overdrafters. Well let's look at what banks do to protect themselves like stores. Do the banks stop approving that card swipte at zero balance? No. Do the banks display a warning to the customer advising them they're about to overdraft with that purchase? No. Conversely the banks not only allow the customers to do this, but in many cases they mandate this to happen, without even allowing the customer to opt-out of it themselves. Wow, those banks really suffer from overdrafters, don't they. Those banks really went out of their way to protect themselves, didn't they.

Now to Re-sequencing. Years ago before the days of mandatory overdraft protection, we were told that banks re-sequence transactions to ensure those larger, more important payments like mortgages and car loans get paid. Even though many of us were smart enough not to buy this, still we said ok, whatever. Well now with mandatory overdraft protection where everything gets paid and nothing gets returned, that would logically imply that re-sequencing is no longer needed.

So just to confirm, why does the customer need mandatory overdraft protection? To prevent duplicate NSF fees from the merchants and to ensure that nothing gets returned (including those important mortgages and car payments). But then why do banks need to re-sequence transactions? To ensure those important mortgage and car payments don't get returned. But aren't those payments covered by mandatory OD protection anyway? Well.......don't worry about that so much.

Again, the bank CAN NOT stop the customer from overdrafting! Read my report above this for examples! (About two above at this point)

Take responsibility America. Quit blaming the bank for your self created prison.

Again to I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Yes I read your examples. Sure there are exceptions to everything. But just because there are exceptions doesn't mean it can't be done period. That's the type of argument you're trying to make: banks can not prevent overdrafts ever, period. Well now it's my turn to show an example of my own.

Your Available bank balance is $50. You go to Walmart and the cashier rings up $75 worth of merchandise. You swipe your card. That swipe traverses electronic wiring and computer systems all the way back to your bank account. Your bank's computer receives the request to process, hold, or deduct $75 from your bank account. Your bank's says, Hmmm.. The customer only has $50. The customer doesn't have enough money for this purchase to be approved. What normally happens in these cases, is a message sent back from the computer system over that same electronic wiring and it shows up on the terminal at the register. Transaction Denied or Transaction Declined.

But instead, what's happening now is the bank's computer system is receiving this $75 purchase request, comparing it with a $50 balance and allowing it. Even more, many banks have mandated that all accounts have to be setup this way and the customer cannot request their account not to be setup this way even if they want to.

Ok, good example Edward, but again, why you'd try to charge $75 on your card when you only have $50 in the account is beyond me. But, I'll play along.

Let's say in your example, that the customer is being intentionally negligent. They should get a fee. Period. 

Now let's try this. Let's say, starting today, that the bank adopted a policy where your debit card wouldn't allow you to exceed your current available balance. Let's also say that an emergency came up and the customer needed to overdraft their account. Maybe the person needs to pick up some life sustaining medications at the store's pharmacy. In that case, that same member who would whine that the bank would "let" them overdraft last week would file yet another ROR about how USB is heartless because they couldn't let the customer go a bit over their balance for their medications. My point is, whichever policy the bank adopts, a handful of people will whine about it. It's a no-win situation for USB.

There's also the constant issue of unforeseen debits that "surprise" the customer's account (usually auto debits and paper checks.) As long as those types of transactions are around, debit card transactions can only be approved by the available balance AT THE VERY SECOND OF PURCHASE. To illustrate my point, here's one final example. If you have $100 in your account and you buy something at Target for $90, but ten minutes after you leave the store, I go to USB and cash a check that you wrote to me for $50, you will still get a fee. Whichever transaction through resequencing causes it is moot. You were short funds. It's basic math.

Final thought: If you maintain your balance, you won't get a fee. You, as the customer, signed a legal document stating that you have read, understand, and agree to all terms of the account including funds availability and their fee structure. You, as the customer, are liable for the balance, NOT THE BANK. If you feel that USB is doing something illegal, by all means, be a whistle blower. Until then, shut up and keep a check register, you bunch of deadbeat crybabies.   

"Ok, good example Edward, but again, why you'd try to charge $75 on your card when you only have $50 in the account is beyond me. But, I'll play along.

Let's say in your example, that the customer is being intentionally negligent. They should get a fee. Period. "

I don't need to speak for Edward..he can see the light..but I will take liberties with the examples...

What does "intentionally negligent" even mean? That statement is "brilliantly retarded". If a customer overdrafts with INTENT..that means they EXPECT a fee..no one has EVER once came to this site to complain about ONE fee from ONE intentional overdraft..so point moot..I will state again...

No one ever said an intentional overdraft should not get a fee..so no need to argue this point. However, many customers were not aware that the re-sequencing would cause so many additional fees until it was too late. Yes, they try to fight it out with the bank..and complain..but 99.9% of these customers pay the fees...hence the 38.5 BILLION dollars the banks will take in..doesn't sound like they are hurting to bad over this..

Now with that said..once a customer is aware of this..and then were to INTENTIONALLY overdraft again..at that point they would have no one to blame but themselves..and why the banks sometimes will forgive some or all of the fees the first time..but after that they stand pretty firm..and that is fair unless a policy has changed without the customers knowledge or consent..seems fair..right?

...next...

"Now let's try this. Let's say, starting today, that the bank adopted a policy where your debit card wouldn't allow you to exceed your current available balance. Let's also say that an emergency came up and the customer needed to overdraft their account. Maybe the person needs to pick up some life sustaining medications at the store's pharmacy. In that case, that same member who would whine that the bank would "let" them overdraft last week would file yet another ROR about how USB is heartless because they couldn't let the customer go a bit over their balance for their medications. My point is, whichever policy the bank adopts, a handful of people will whine about it. It's a no-win situation for USB."

So, they will whine..how does that effect you, me or the price of tea in China? If a customer by their own will CHOOSES to opt out of courtesy overdraft protection..that more likely that not means they understood the implications. So what if they complain?..if they opt out of overdraft protection..then the bank has no RIGHT to loan them any money..nor assume any transactions that can cause an OD to be considered "pre-authorized"..seem fair??  yes...fair. No one can please everyone..it is not a one size fits all society..but trust me..the customer would complain a lot more if they overdrafted 50 cents for their heart medication..and received $345.00 in OD fees..now that would give them a heart attack for sure.

Where I think this example you stated holds no bearing is that no one is asking the banks to suddenly stop permitting overdrafts to ocur...what we are asking is the bank not only allow opting out by the customers choice..but ask the customers if they want the courtesy overdraft protection, and then sign specifically to enroll in it..once again very fair to all parties.

"There's also the constant issue of unforeseen debits that "surprise" the customer's account (usually auto debits and paper checks.) As long as those types of transactions are around, debit card transactions can only be approved by the available balance AT THE VERY SECOND OF PURCHASE. To illustrate my point, here's one final example. If you have $100 in your account and you buy something at Target for $90, but ten minutes after you leave the store, I go to USB and cash a check that you wrote to me for $50, you will still get a fee. Whichever transaction through resequencing causes it is moot. You were short funds. It's basic math."

Once again..no one is inplying the fees will go away.

Many just feel that RE-SEQUENCING combined with an overdraft bring on excessive fees..and if you read these reports..you will find many did not have intent to overdraft in the first place..so a merchant error or check issue should cost a customer hundreds of dollars when only a SINGLE overdraft really happened...that's the point here..the bank will still be able to charge overdraft fees in some cases..or rightfully decline transactions..you know..the way it used to be in the good old days before the scamming and lack of a caring community.

"Final thought: If you maintain your balance, you won't get a fee. You, as the customer, signed a legal document stating that you have read, understand, and agree to all terms of the account including funds availability and their fee structure. You, as the customer, are liable for the balance, NOT THE BANK. If you feel that USB is doing something illegal, by all means, be a whistle blower. Until then, shut up and keep a check register, you bunch of deadbeat crybabies."

"Final thought??" Okay Jerry Springer.I knew you could not end this without an ignorant remark.

So tell us..what in your opinion is a deadbeat? Explain an example where in this or any report someone was a deadbeat? A deadbeat by definition is..."One who does not pay ones debts". So can you show us an example of someone here who has not payed their debts? The issue on these reports is the excessive fees which the banks tactics have contributed significantly to..no one here has just decided not to pay their debts..except maybe in your land of make believe, where we are still in a cold war with commies.

So you think no one should complain here about this? Okay then..but how then would they get to read your wonderful compassionate advice..since it has really seemed to help..has it not?

I am the law,

You're almost there. Now here are the next points to show the flaw in your recent arguments. First, you will not find one single report here on the ROR or anywhere else where overdrafting customers are complaining that they shouldn't be charged any fee, period. The complaints are against the banks using unfair and deceptive tactics to trick and then exploit situations into multiple, snowballing fees. Now to the other point. You are correct that if the banks were to suddenly flip flop and adopt a blanket policy that says all cards are denied at zero balance, then of course you would have some customers complaining about that. Especially in those emergency situations.

So what's the resolution? You can't please everyone, right? Here's a novel idea. Give each other customer their own choice. If you're a customer who likes the freedom and privelege to overdraft when you need to, and you don't mind paying the fees, then you can opt-in to overdraft protection, or courtesy overdraft. On the other hand, if you're a customer who never wants to pay a fee for any reason, and you know you will always have other options for emergencies, then you can opt-out of overdraft protection or courtesy overdraft.

Only then can everyone say that each group has no complaints. Each group made their own choice. Now how hard was it to come up with that idea? And why are the banks now doing this voluntarily, only after very real threats from the Feds and Congress? By the way, those gov proposals are still coming anyway, so it's too little, too late by the banks. They have their own prolonged greed to blame.

Gentlemen,

"Choice" is the issue here. Will the bank allow you to go a bit over your balance, yes. No argument there. But you two keep screaming about customer choice, so let me say this. The customer CHOSE to overdraft their account. The customer CHOSE to not pay attention to their balance without using any of the SIX possible ways to check it. The customer CHOSE to not sign up for the numerous forms of overdraft protection. The fact that the bank will let you slightly exceed your balance is completely moot if you don't spend what you don't have available! I am subject to the same bank rules and regulations as you two. That being said, the fact that I've never had an overdraft proves my point: There is no hidden conspiracy at USB to make the customers overdraft. If there was, I would've gotten them as well. Case closed. Move on.

Resequencing is also moot. They could run transactions in alphabetical order for all intents and purposes and it wouldn't matter if you maintain a sufficient balance and don't end a business day with a negative available balance. This isn't difficult. It's third grade math. Do you need me to write in crayon for you so you can understand it? 

So go ahead with your childish insults and your insane banter. Keep looking to the horizon for political change to support your negligent ways. Nothing will change. If you two can't even pay attention to your bank balance, I shutter to think of what your homes look like and how you raise your children. Are you this negligent with your personal hygiene as well? 

To I am the law, at the Kangaroo Court:

I always find it funny how obvious the signs are when adversaries recognize defeat, and predictably deviate to personal insults and off topic subject matter that has nothing to do with the issue we were so professionally and maturely debating. But dont' feel bad. You're are certainly not the first to fall victim to this circumstance.

Let me give you a suggestion. Your angst is terribly misguided. Ronny G and myself are nothing more than two strangers posting our opinions here on the ROR. We have zero influence on policy making at your precious US Bank. You would be much better served doing the following:

1. Write a letter to Richard Davis (US Bank CEO), asking what is he thinking by changing his OD Fee policies (like all other banks), throwing away (B)illions of dollars in profits, all for a bunch of druggies, losers, deadbeats, whiners, and.....what else? Oh yeah, cry babies. I think I covered them all, according to you.

2. Submit your Request for Comments to the Federal Reserve Board, which was accepting such feedback from everyone. Surely they will listen to your insight as they debate their own proposal changes at these ripoff policies.

3. Write a letter to your local Congress Rep and Senator, asking them why they're wasting your tax payer dollars by contemplating law changes aimed at these same ripoff policies.

4. And finally, in each of these three letters, don't forget to ask why all of them are doing this for just 0.000001% of bank customers who have issues with OD fees. What sense does that make? How did the CEO Richard Davis, the Fed Reserve Board members, and Congressmen all get to where they're at by making such stupid decisions?

     Well guys, I don't know why you think that I've been "defeated" in this argument, or "owned" or "served" or whatever it is the kids of today are saying. It seems to me like the chumps that got the overdraft fees were the ones defeated.

     It's obvious at this point that neither one of us is going to change the other one's mind. That's fine, this is America. We have a right to express our opinions. My opinion is that almost every single time, overdrafts can be easily avoided by the customer. It's also my opinion that most people that overdraft are usually from the lower element in society. I feel that the bank is doing nothing wrong in terms of their fee structure, posting order, or funds availability because they told me what those terms were. If I didn't like the terms of that legal contract, no one was forcing me to sign it. I was raised to take responsibility for my actions. Obviously, that's a nearly extinct concept here in America, so I'm sorry if that offends you.  

    Guys, it's silly to blame the bank. This whole "corporate conspiracy" theory is getting old. I would imagine that credit card companies, health insurance companies, and loan agencies get the same bad rap. Customers agree to the company's policies when they open the account, sign off on them, and then complain about it when the rules of the agreement take shape. They act like no one told them. This type of behavior is deplorable. I would compare that to someone getting a driver's license. When you get a driver's license, you agree to and signing that document that says that you will follow the state driving laws or risk penalty. Then you cry about how you're being picked on by the police for getting a speeding ticket for going 55 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. You were warned and you ignored the rules. The same logic applies here. I don't care how much money the bank makes annually from overdraft fees, rules are rules. 

    Go ahead and file your rebuttals. Don't worry, I won't respond. You're boring me and frankly, I don't want to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I'll just be at home watching my new TV that I could afford because I haven't paid my bank a dime in overdraft fees in the eight years I've had an account with them.   

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Another clue of an adversary's utter frustration is when they seek any meaningless point they can exploit and then solely address that single point, all while cleverly skipping over all other relevant points without so much as a knowing nod. I regret the reference of the word 'defeat' because I hate it when a meaningful discussion takes an unproductive turn. I withdraw the comment.

Since you didn't indicate whether you have done so already, or whether you will do so, and to show how fair I am, I will write those letters for you, myself, to the US Bank CEO, Richard Davis, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Ohio Congressional Delegation. I will express my frustration with all of their stupid decisions, bending over backwards all for a bunch of druggies, losers, deadbeats, whiners, and cry babies. But I will cut Richard Davis some slack because apparently he's not the only bank CEO dufus. Apparently all of the other bank CEOs are making the same stupid decisions to throw away (B)illions of dollars in profits also. What is the world coming to? Something in the banking water?

Well, that about wraps it up for this session of the Kangaroo Court. :)

Copied from recent news reports...

Last week, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo said they would no longer automatically enroll customers for overdraft protection.

Here is a breakdown of the proposed changes:

• Bank of America will eliminate fees for customers if overdrafts are less than $10 within one day. BOA will also collect no more than four items of overdraft per day (previously it was 10 items per day).
• J.P. Morgan will stop charging fees for customers if overdrafts are less than $5 in one day.
• Wells Fargo & Co. plans to stop charging fees if overdrafts are less than $5 a day and also plan to collect fees on no more than four items per day.

Regions Bank on Thursday became the latest bank to ease its overdraft fees and policies, as federal scrutiny intensifies over the programs.

However, the Alabama-based company said it will continue automatically enrolling customers for overdraft protection — the key practice that has come under fire in recent months.

Committee Chairman, Barney Frank (D., Mass), and Senate Banking Committee Chairman, Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), are both planning to push legislation to change bank overdraft policies, such as requiring banks to request permission before enrolling customers in overdraft programs. The Federal Reserve is also considering strong restrictions on overdraft fees - this could be finalized by the end of the year.

Effective during the first quarter of 2010, U.S. Bank will:

• Eliminate overdraft fees when a customer’s account is overdrawn by less than $10, regardless of the number of overdraft transactions that may have occurred.
• Limit the number of overdraft fees to no more than three per day.
• Offer “opt out” ability to customers who prefer that the bank decline or return any transaction on their account, whenever possible, when they are presented against insufficient funds.
• Continue to offer free mobile, email and Internet banking alerts to customers so that they can become more aware of their available balance and manage their spending accordingly.
• Provide new customers the ability to “opt in” to overdraft privileges with U.S. Bank. This choice allows customers to define how they prefer transactions to be handled by the bank when there are insufficient funds in their account.
• Establish an annual cap on the amount of overdraft fees that can be assessed on any single account at the bank.

So..the ball is rolling. And I hope we don't have to save the banks asses anymore with our tax dollars. If those deadbeat bank executives don't pay theirs bills..they should be put in jail.

This article that you pasted here is stating that USB will no longer automatically sign up new customers for credit lines to protect their account from overdrafting. Did you actually read this? 

So, you're advocating that the bank NOT take automatic steps to prevent overdraft fees from occuring on your account? Um, ok. I guess that's what you wanted.

Now, before you spout off with the "you don't know what you're talking about" speech, let me tell you that I have this product attached to my checking account. As for the fee info itself, big deal, they dropped from a max of six overdraft fees per day to three. Well, whoop-dee-doo! That's like saying "I was only shot in the head three times instead of six." You're still going to be punished for your negligence. So, that would drop the max amount of fees that you could incur per day from $210 to $105? (roughly). Still seems like a lot of money to me. But, I guess that $105 difference could buy a decent amount of meth for these overdrafting lowlifes.

 

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Apparently you don't know what you're talking about, as you make the same mistake that many others make. Confusing Courtesy Overdraft with Overdraft Protection. Until recently, the only form of Overdraft Protection was a Savings account or Credit Card linked to your checking account. When transactions posted and you didn't have a sufficient balance, the bank pulls the funds from your Savings or Credit Card. You're still charged a fee, but it's much less than $35. And more importantly, no matter how many transactions there were, it would only be one fee, for the single transfer, not multiple fees for each transaction. Hence the key word 'Protection'. This traditional form of OD Protection is not feasible for some customers who don't have Savings accounts or Credit Cards.

That's where Courtesy Overdraft came in, where the bank allows you to overdraw your account, up to a certain limit. Hence the key word 'Courtesy'. But the big difference is you are charged a $35 fee for each transaction. This is the new program that many banks are enrolling new customers into by default, without the customer's consent. Think about it. How can the bank auto-enroll a new customer into OD Protection linked to Savings or Credit Card, when the new customer has neither? Some customers like having Courtesy Overdraft and don't mind paying the multiple fees.

But then you have other customers who don't want this at all. Even though they don't have Savings or Credit Card which prevents OD protection, these same customers still do not want Courtesy Overdraft either. They prefer their card be denied when the balance is zero. This is what the article is referring to.

p.s. Welcome Back. :)

Question for Ronny G and Edward. I'm going to use an example here.... 

Situation: You have $100 in your account. A check is presented to the bank for $120. In addition, let's say that you have no form of overdraft protection at all.

The bank has two ways to handle this situation:

Option 1: The bank decides that they'll risk honoring the check. End result: a negative $20 balance and an overdraft fee. Depending on how long you leave your account negative, you could start getting a daily fee, as well. (I think it's $7 a day after four days. It's somewhere in that neighborhood.)

Option 2: The bank decides that they don't want to risk honoring the check. End result: no balance change, but a returned item fee. The party you wrote the check to will most likely charge you a fee of their own. (very common with creditors.) 

So basically, no matter what course of action USB takes, you're going to get a fee of some sort. (perhaps more than one.) So, I can't understand why you guys are complaining about USB trying to enroll people in overdraft protection. It's free unless you use it. Again, I actually have this product attached to my checking account. Wouldn't you rather pay a few cents a day (or a few dollars based on how far you went negative) instead of a bunch of $35 fees? Why are you screaming about choice? The bank is trying to protect overdrafters from their own negligent ways! 

Just want to mention one other thing here. What USB signs new customers up for for OD protection isn't a savings account or credit card (unless they want one), it's a basic line of credit.

I will grant you that whenever you introduce a written check into the equation, no one will argue with the fact that any form of OD protection is preferred. No customer ever wants a check returned because it would result in two fees (one from the bank and one from the merchant). But the majority of the customer complaints involve the use of Debit Cards only. However, the clever tactics by banks is to take advantage of this situation and exploit it to the fullest. So you want to ensure that no checks are returned, huh? Well of course we'll give it to you. But that also means all of those card swipes will also be allowed even after zero balance. And let the fee profits start rolling on in, after each swipe.

Once again the Federal Reserve has recognized reality and logic in their proposals. Part of the Federal Reserve's proposal for allowing customers to opt-out of mandatory OD protection is that it would only affect ATM and debit card purchases. Yes, this is stated in the proposals. Consumer testing by the Fed revealed that customers would not opt-out of mandatory OD protection if that also means their written checks and bill pay items would be returned. Of course, the evil banks have voiced their opinion also. They want the Fed's proposals to make the opt-out a 'blanket' decision. It's all or nothing. If the customer opts-out, yes that means checks and bill pay would also be returned. If they opt-in, yes that means the card would be allowed at zero balance. It's a gotcha for the customer either way.

Yes, it would seem the customer is trying to have it both ways. I can't disagree. But the customers are only in this strong negotiating position because of the banks digging their own graves with all of their previous unfair and deceptive policies. They have themselves to blame for having zero sympathizers in Washington these days.

I will grant you that whenever you introduce a written check into the equation, no one will argue with the fact that any form of OD protection is preferred. No customer ever wants a check returned because it would result in two fees (one from the bank and one from the merchant).

WHAT??? All we seem to get from a few people is "opt out".."opt out".."opt out"..  If the bank does not stop a person from writing a check and they cash it on an overdrawn account.  Why should a bank stop a person from using their debit card?  Both are attempts by the account holder to spend money they don't have in their account.  Why does the level of responsibility change between the two forms of payments? 

Oh and yes a majority of the fees come from people using debit cards, so I will give you that one.  But this is because that is the form of payment they are using.  Before debit cards people would use cash or check.  If a person wrote more than 10-15 checks a MONTH they were a heavy check writer, and it was very rare if more than one or two came in per day.  For their daily expenses they used CASH.  Today there are people that are using their Debit card 10-15 times a WEEK(for some people that is a day), in addition to the few checks that they still write for various reasons.  So just in the quantity of transactions a person that is going to overdraft is going to get "hit" with more fees. 

I personally don't see a problem with the All or Nothing approach.  If for no other reason to hopefully get people to realize they have to manage their account.  I would hope that the first time a person get's their check returned, after blaming the bank for returning the check and the merchant for charging another fee.  It may actually sink in that they need to maintain their accounts better.  Which for some reason does not happen with Debit Cards.

It's a gotcha for the customer either way.

No it comes back to the fact that the account holder MUST be responsible for their own account.  If they maintain their balance there is NO gotcha because they won't be hit with fees.

And you can try and argue the "bank or merchant error" all day long, but as has been stated many times.  In those cases the bank and/or merchant should be responsible for ALL fees that were caused.  Keeping in mind that with very few exceptions all of the reports on overdraft fees have to do with the person not maintaining their account rather than a bank or merchant error.

Yes, it would seem the customer is trying to have it both ways. I can't disagree.

Well at least you appear to still have some common sense left to see this. 

..if...number one, the customer has a choice to opt out...and two..the bank does not "automatically" enroll a customer in the service. And as Edward stated..and what we have been talking about all this time..is "courtesy" overdraft protection...not a transfer overdraft service..2 different animals as we uncover the fact that in MOST cases..courtesy overdraft protection was neither courteous..nor any form at all to actually "protect" one penny of the customers money.

Congress in also going to push that at the time of a transaction...if the customers account is about to overdraft..that the customer is notified..and can be given the CHOICE if they want the transaction declined..or accept the fee...sounds MORE then fair to me.

Now before you go off on one of your deadbeat junkie loser tangents..and spewing "don't spend more then you have yada yada blah blah eat me"...first realize that of the over 38 BILLION dollars in fees the banks took in this year, 90% of those customers were low income. Now I know you have no compassion and assume anyone with low income is a deadbeat junkie..but has we have witnessed posted on ROR..this is not the case...they simply keep a low balance..many due to the current economic crisis if you hadn't noticed...so if a simple human error....or a check that was held longer then usual...or by merchant fraud or error..well I could list DOZENS of possible ways a customer may not realize they are overdrafting (and the online statement often is misleading even if they were to check it first)...so they innocently go shopping and the next day due to a single overdraft WITHOUT INTENT..have hundreds of dollars in fees. Now I know you would call this person a deadbeat junkie loser...but WHO do you think has paid 90% of the over 38 BILLION dollars the banks took in??? They did..it's a statistical public fact...so in a sense without them..the banks would have had to earn that money some other way..right??...Like for example no more free checking..interest rate adjustments etc..you know the game I am the law. Lets review your post to me now and I will answer..

"Question for Ronny G and Edward. I'm going to use an example here.... 

Situation: You have $100 in your account. A check is presented to the bank for $120. In addition, let's say that you have no form of overdraft protection at all.

The bank has two ways to handle this situation:

Option 1: The bank decides that they'll risk honoring the check. End result: a negative $20 balance and an overdraft fee. Depending on how long you leave your account negative, you could start getting a daily fee, as well. (I think it's $7 a day after four days. It's somewhere in that neighborhood.)

Option 2: The bank decides that they don't want to risk honoring the check. Endresult: no balance change, but a returned item fee. The party you wrote the check to will most likely charge you a fee of their own. (very common with creditors.) 

So basically, no matter what course of action USB takes, you're going to get a fee of some sort. (perhaps more than one.) So, I can't understand why you guys are complaining about USB trying to enroll people in overdraft protection. It's free unless you use it. Again, I actually have this product attached to my checking account. Wouldn't you rather pay a few cents a day (or a few dollars based on how far you went negative) instead of a bunch of $35 fees? Why are you screaming about choice? The bank is trying to protect overdrafters from their own negligent ways! "

Why do you always have to end your replies with a degrading remark..you know you almost start to sound reasonable..but you can't hold the ignorant insults back..and that is why I come down on you so hard.

And speaking of "negligent"....once AGAIN...we are not talking about the type of OD protection that you pay for, like a transfer service or account linking..why are you not comprehending the posts you are rebutting?? Courtesy overdraft protection is provided free of charge..that is until you actually need some "protection"..then it does nothing but fleece you dry.

But this has been discussed in detail by Edward and myself so no need to keep repeating it.

Edward and I BOTH understand there are cases where the bank will charge fees. We have NEVER said we do not want the bank to charge fees...so why do you argue this over and over..it is redundant and boring. If an overdraft is to occur...the bank will charge a fee..no one EVER disputed that...and if a check comes in NSF...the customer will be charged a fee from the banks..and possibly another NSF fee from whom the check was issued to...so..this is WHY we want the customers to have a choice..

For many people that have a savings account link..and CHOOSE to pay for a transfer service..that is fine.good for them. For people who live paycheck to paycheck and in most cases do not have a savings account..they can not afford the excessive fees that a single overdraft can cause when courtesy OD protection is combined with re-sequencing....they would rather have 2 NSF fees..or risk embarrassment at a point of sale....then be charged 350 dollars for coffee and diaper purchases...is that so difficult to understand?

Our government and the banks themselves seem to understand..and are making the appropriate corrections..the gravy train off the backs of the hardest hit Americans during this crisis is coming to an end..period..no if's and's or but's...

...so if you don't like it..write a letter to your congressman..or the bank..you may have a better chance of getting your way with that..then coming here arguing about the wrong subject..or calling hard working honest struggling American people names like deadbeats and junkies.

It's public knowledge that 90% of the 38.5 BILLION+ dollars in OD fees this year came from low income customers..you know..they maintain a low balance.

And while it is true no policy is perfect for everyone..I am sure that most customers who suffered additional hardship from $300.00 in fees resulting from a single overdraft for WHATEVER reason..is not going to cause near as many complaints as if they VOLUNTARILY CHOSE to opt out of OD protection..and received 2 fees instead from a bounced check that they caused. How can they blame the bank for that?

Now with that said..once the re-sequencing issue is dealt with..and the new policies limiting the amount of overdrafts...and minimum amounts that will be covered..in that case OD protection may not be such a bad idea..of course combined with personal responsibility of ones account. Sure nothing can stop fraud and error from causing an unintentional OD from occurring..but if the banks played fair..there would be no reason or need to lodge a report AGAINST the banks here over it.

It's really so simple..why is anyone arguing these points or having trouble comprehending?? The banks are already in process of making the appropriate changes so this argument is really becoming moot.

if they VOLUNTARILY CHOSE to opt out of OD protection..and received 2 fees instead from a bounced check that they caused. How can they blame the bank for that?

Well Edward pointed out that the regulations state that this "opt-out" would NOT apply to checks or ACH transactions.  It would only apply to Debit and ATM transactions.  So the question remains..

Why does the level of responsibility change between the two forms of payments?

Or do you agree that it should be an All or nothing choice on Opt-In/Opt-Out of the "Courtesy" Overdraft privilege?

Just one other point of correction.

It's public knowledge that 90% of the 38.5 BILLION+ dollars in OD fees this year came from low income customers

- Actually you mis-quoted the article.  The report stated that 90% of the 38.5 Billion in fees came from just 10% of the customers.  There was nothing about the income status.  In fact it stated that it was a mix of rich and poor, men and women.

The same information was posted in several feeds and sites.  This particluar one was from the CNN Money Article of Aug 10 2009 titled "Bank overdraft fees to total 38.5 Billion"(just in case the link gets redacted)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/10/news/companies/bank_overdraft_fees_Moebs/

If you have a different report showing different information please let us know.

Robert, I am glad to see you have been following along and have chimed in. As I stated in my previous post, I will grant you the logical argument that consumers are trying to selectively have it both ways. To be honest with you, I was literally stunned when I read the wording of the Federal Reseve proposals where they proposed that opt-out would not affect ACH, checks, or bill pays. Now Robert, what does that tell you? These are the Fed's proposals, not mine. The Federal Reserve are bankers themselves, and they're the ones proposing this, not me. Just wanted to make that clear.

Now to answer your question. The reason for the difference is because we're comparing apples and oranges. Consider the argument surrounding re-sequencing. You have often heard customers argue for posting items in the order they occur or the order they're received. One of the common rebuttal arguments made by bank supporters is how can the bank know of any outstanding checks written by the customer? The answer is they don't know. So when this check comes in to post that the bank didn't know about, do they pay it or return it? The bank couldn't prevent it upfront but still the bank has a decision to make. Either way, there will still be a fee no matter whether it's paid or returned.

Well Robert, we have come full circle as I now turn that argument back against the banks and their supporters. For debit card purchases, the bank does indeed know about these when they occur. The bank knows immediately about that card swipe at Walmart, and the bank knows the Available Balance at that precise moment in time. Therefore the bank is able to alert the customer of the overdraft, giving the customer the option to cancel if they don't want the fee. Or the bank is able to decline the purchase itself, if the customer has opted-out. For checks, this cannot be done because banks don't know about them until they're already presented. No matter if the check is returned or paid, it still results in a fee either way. But with debit cards, the bank is able to help prevent the fee altogether by declining the transaction or giving the customer the option to decline the transaction.

So we're confining the argument to debit card transactions, are we? Fine...

I'm sure the technology exists where SOME of the time the bank could warn a member at the point of purchase that a transaction could POTENTIALLY put them in an overdraft situation.

But, the question remains... Why should the bank have to spend time, money, and staff on equipment to reinforce a customer's laziness? In some form or another, the bank is going to pass that expense on to the customers. (Please no "banks made 38 billion dollars last year" comments. You and I both know that the expense would fall on us.) So, right now, you have six ways to check your balance. Five of these are available to you 24 hours a day. What good is a seventh form? Negligent people are still going to overdraft. Overdrafters don't care or else they'd use one of those five options and/or elect overdraft protection.

To Robert and I am the law,

Thanks to I am the law's last post, I was reminded of the primary reason for the customers demanding these new policy changes and the reason for the distinction between debit cards and checks. It's because of the new way of charging fees by the banks based solely on debit card usage. First implemented by Wachovia years ago, then the flood of all other banks following suit last year, including US Bank. And that is the Unavailable Funds Fee, where OD Fees are pre-determined to be charged, even before the transaction has ever posted.

There's no need for the banks to spend any new money to implement anything. They've already spent the money, because that's what enabled them to implement the new ripoff Unavailable Funds Fee. In the past, you were never charged a fee until a transaction posted and it overdrew your Posted Account Balance. But now, as soon as you swipe the card at Walmart, overdrawing your Available Balance, you're charged a fee. In the past, when this happened, while the transaction was still pending, you were able to go to the bank and beat the transaction with a deposit. This was based on the bank's policy at that time. If the deposit posted before the transaction, the end result was no fee. No harm no foul.

Banks caught on to this, and changed their policies. [This is where they spent that money, I am the law]. To implement the Unavailable Funds Fee. Now it doesn't matter if you beat the transaction back to the bank with a deposit. Even if your Posted Account Balance never goes negative, you're still charged a fee because your Available Balance went negative, even if it was only negative for ten minutes before you made a deposit before cut-off. With this new technology that they spent money to implement, if the banks are able to determine at the point of sale each time you overdraw your Available Balance, allowing them to charge the ripoff Unavailable Funds Fee, this means that same technology allows them to warn you in advance of this action, or it allows them to decline the transaction. There you have it guys. That should answer all of your questions.

 It started with a discussion regarding how much it actually costs the bank to process an overdraft, vs. what they take in fees. No one knows the answer to that..but this article is very informative nonetheless... I highlighted the areas where I "misquoted" from... The financial Times .. seems I used the term "low income" when the article uses the term "most cash - strapped"..so I was more or less on base according to this article but it is easy to understand my misinterpretation when you see the actual statement.. I also highlighted some other interesting facts at the end. What is disappointing is that this FT article failed to indicate
what costs the banks incur in processing overdrafts. Although this
activity is presumably very profitable, it would be nice to know by how
much.
From the Financial Times :

US banks stand to collect a record $38.5 BILLION in fees for
customer overdrafts this year, with the bulk of the revenue coming from
the most financially stretched consumers amid the deepest recession
since the 1930s…The fees are nearly double those reported in 2000…
The Federal Reserve is working on rules on overdraft fees, and
rules on customer charges could be a priority of the Obama
administration’s proposed Consumer Protection Agency if approved by
Congress.

Data from Moebs Services, a research company, show that the crisis
has prompted many banks to lift charges on overdrafts and credit cards
in order to boost profits.

The median bank overdraft fee has this year rose from $25 to $26,
according to Moebs, the first time it has gone up in a recession for
more than 40 years…..

Overdraft fees accounted for more than three-quarters of service fees charged on customer deposits…

The most cash-strapped customers are the hardest hit by such fees,
with 90 per cent of overdraft revenues coming from 10 per cent of the
130m checking accounts in the US….

Banks say that the fees compensate for the risk they incur when they
pay on behalf of customers who do not have enough money in their
accounts….

The highest overdraft fees were charged by the largest banks, said
Mr Moebs. At banks with assets greater than $50bn – a group including
Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo – the median
overdraft fee is set at $33.

At BofA, a customer overdrawn by as little as $6 could trigger a $35
penalty. If the customer does not realize they have a negative balance
and continue spending, they could incur that fee as many as 10 times in
a single day, for a total of $350. Failing to repay the overdraft
within a few days results in an additional $35 penalty….

Chase has tiered overdraft fees – the first overdraft within a
12-month period is charged at $25, the second to fourth at $32 and the
fifth at $35….

Consumer advocacy groups point to very low loss rates on overdrafts
for all banks and argue that overdrafts are the least risky form of
credit, while being the most expensive for consumers.

Eric Halperin, director of the Center for Responsible Lending said:
“The banks own your pay check before you do, so the only way you can
default on your overdraft is if you choose to open another account and
deposit your income elsewhere.”

The last paragraph relates to something I have said over and over when bank defenders like "I am the Law" claim these over-drafting "deadbeats" pull out of the bank owing money. Sure a very small percentage might not mind to ruin their credit rating and face possible charges to prove a point...but keep in mind many customers use direct deposit for their paychecks and other income...and even if they chose to default..it takes 2 weeks to change banks where the direct deposit will go. By that time the bank already took the overdraft..and all related fees...in essence the customer really has no control..which is the same as mandatory courtesy overdraft protection and re-sequencing do as well.

Sure if you were to never overdraft this would not be a concern..but overdrafts will happen..how much does the bank need to make off each one to be happy? Apparently they were taking too much or we wouldn't be here now.

Ronny G, your last post quoted an article that stated,

"...The most cash-strapped customers are the hardest hit by such fees,
with 90 per cent of overdraft revenues coming from 10 per cent of the
130m checking accounts in the US…."

Thanks for proving my point. The average, intelligent customer (9 out of 10 people) can avoid overdrafts with a minimal amount of effort. And, the reason these other people are so cash-strapped is because they don't follow a few simple rules. 

Want to stick it to the bank, you 1 out of 10? Follow the banks rules and they won't make a penny off of you, at least in terms of fees.

To I am the law, from the Kangroo Court:

Thanks for proving what point? Your point where said, and I quote, ''That's typically the class of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers''.  Any logical thinking person can conclude that's by far not what the artical insinuated. Just one example is group of millions of Americans included in the 9.5% unemployment rate. I'm willing to bet a vast majority of those in that group are probably cash-strapped right about now, but that doesn't logically translate to druggies and users. But I'm also willing to bet a vast majority of the cash-strapped within this unemployment group are probably getting hit with more OD fees, compared with others fortunate enough to still have a job.

P.S. Thanks for proving my point in my last post to yourself and Robert where I said ''That should answer all of your questions''. I guess I was right, since you didn't bother to address it any further. Well, nothing further Your Honor. This session of the Kangaroo Court is adjourned.

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Thanks for proving what point? Your point where you said, and I quote, ''That's typically the class of people that get overdrafts; druggies and losers''.  Any logical thinking person can conclude that's by far not what the article insinuated. Just one example is group of millions of Americans included in the 9.5% unemployment rate. I'm willing to bet a vast majority of those in that group are probably cash-strapped right about now, but that doesn't logically translate to druggies and users. But I'm also willing to bet a vast majority of the cash-strapped within this unemployment group are probably getting hit with more OD fees, compared with others fortunate enough to still have a job.

P.S. Thanks for proving my point in my last post to yourself and Robert where I said ''That should answer all of your questions''. I guess I was right, since you didn't bother to address it any further. Well, nothing further Your Honor. This session of the Kangaroo Court is adjourned.

Ok, first of all, Edwardo, I have no idea what a "kangaroo court" is, so please try to avoid using terms that only overdrafting druggies use.

In my last post, I was just trying to say that if USB's policies were so geared against the customer, you wouldn't get statistics like that. Apparently, most of the stupidity of overdrafting lies with 1 out of every 10 people. That tells me that reasonably intelligent and vigilant people can manage to follow the rules of funds availability. If the bank was "out to get you", that statistic would be like 7 or 8 out of 10.

Edward, quit making excuses for these losers. Quit enabling negligent behavior.  

Oh man, we're back on the resequencing issue again.

FACT: Resequencing doesn't mean a thing if you have enough money to cover all of the items presented to the account that business day! This isn't quantum mechanics here. Your bank could run transactions through based on amount, time of receipt, alphabetical order, color, flavor, religious affiliation, WHATEVER! AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A SUFFICENT BALANCE! Overdrafts are assigned if a customer completes a BUSINESS DAY with a negative available balance.

FACT: Banks typically run transactions through in this order: credits first (I would love to see someone whine about that.), then larger debits to smaller ones. This is because larger debits are typically more important. You really can't argue that. If you were short money, wouldn't you rather have your mortgage check considered first instead of your cable check? Silly me, but I'd rather have a roof over my head than HBO any day.

Well, I'd imagine right now my good friends Edward and Ronny G and preparing a rebuttal filled with bogus stats that support the negligence of the average overdrafter, so I'll wrap this up...

Overdrafters: get sober, learn to read what you're signing, and take responsibility for your lives. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes. Get off of welfare and get a job and finally, quit being a burden to society. 

Just to set the record straight, overdrafters worship the Devil, too.

That you are a very, very silly person.

So..I guess the banks are changing these policies to appease 1 out of 10 customers..and all those customers are druggies? I guess the ignorant judge from the KANGAROO court has determined that anyone having financial struggles during a recession..is hereby decreed a junkie loser?...nice..but proves your ignorance to all who read this even more so then it has already.

Wow, looks like the banks are burning you pretty bad for a few million druggies.

I don't have to post any "phony" statistics..all the statistics have already been posted..and were copied and pasted directly from the FDIC report so if you have issue with any of the stats...give em a call, I am sure they want to hear your side.

Get ready I am the law...no more free checking soon...and expect your interest rates to start sucking. And don't forget to blame the druggies for that (even though the report states most of them have paid all the fees)..and don't put any blame on the banks..because the banks are our friend..remember..we the American taxpayers were nice enough to lend them 700 BILLION dollars... because they are so perfect.

To I am the Law..apparently you still don't get it...

"Oh man, we're back on the resequencing issue again."

It's not so much that we're "back" on re-sequencing again, because it is still occuring (although B of A is stopping soon voluntarily)..but it is a problem when combined with mandatory "courtesy" OD protection. Perhaps because you never had an overdraft..you were not victimized by it. Now..I couldn't agree more..that if someone does not have an overdraft, re-sequencing wouldn't matter..but since people do overdraft..and the bank ENCOURAGES it by giving mandatory "courtesy" overdraft protection to all of it's customers..then it really does become an issue..because whether you like it or not..overdrafts WILL occur if the BANKS continue to ALLOW and ENCOURAGE them to take place.

Now..where I will agree customer negligence comes into play..is a customer who was not on to the scam..and was banged with many additional excessive fees that resulted from a SINGLE legitimate overdraft....and then does it again. Fool me once..shame on you..fool me twice..shame on me. However..this does not imply that anyone who is strapped for cash is a junkie..nor does it imply anyone who overdrafts is an idiot..but if a person overdrafts with INTENT once they know what the bank will do by re-sequencing..then at that point they have to take blame.

It's like if you were a kid and walked home from school and on a particular block and a bunch of bullies would kick your ass. Now the first time you didn't expect the ass whopping..so you have no one to blame but the bullies. HOWEVER, if you walk home the same way the next day..and the same bullies beat your ass..then yes..you were not too smart to repeat the same action and expect a different result. At the same time..this does NOT excuse the bullies for beating a kid up..it's still wrong..even though the victim was aware it might happen again.

"FACT: Resequencing doesn't mean a thing if you have enough money to cover all of the items presented to the account that business day! This isn't quantum mechanics here. Your bank could run transactions through based on amount, time of receipt, alphabetical order, color, flavor, religious affiliation, WHATEVER! AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE A SUFFICENT BALANCE! Overdrafts are assigned if a customer completes a BUSINESS DAY with a negative available balance."

FACT: Re-sequencing wouldn't mean a thing IF the banks didn't force mandatory courtesy overdraft protection onto it's customers..because even though you think the millions upon millions of customer who incurred overdrafts for one reason or the other are junkies...it doesn't change the fact that when many additional fees were applied for transactions that HAD the funds at the time of the transaction..were applied an additional fee to these transactions as if the funds were unavailable. Now this would be IMPOSSIBLE to occur if not for the banks manipulations..and I know next you talk about why the banks do this..and I am going to de-bunk that as well...quite effortlessly I might add..no quantum mechanics or physics required.

"FACT: Banks typically run transactions through in this order: credits first (I would love to see someone whine about that.), then larger debits to smaller ones. This is because larger debits are typically more important. You really can't argue that. If you were short money, wouldn't you rather have your mortgage check considered first instead of your cable check? Silly me, but I'd rather have a roof over my head than HBO any day."

FACT: Now Edward has also effortlessly de-bunked this reasoning several times..but I will add to it.

First of all..if the customer has overdraft protection..the bank will cover overdrafts...right? Now..if a 1000 dollar transaction overdrafts the account by 50 dollars..the bank will cover it and charge a fee..right? AND if the customer has a 100 dollar transaction and overdrafts the account by 50 dollars..the bank will cover that too..right? So where on earth does your logic come in? As well..how does the bank know the $1000 is not for a night in Vegas..and the $100.00 is not for heart medication? How on Gods green earth do they know?..or have a right to make this assumption without asking the customer first? And it doesn't matter anyway...if the customer has overdraft protection..both of those transactions are going to be covered...right? So where is the logic? Sounds to me more like a tactic to yield additional fees..does it not?

And even if your last reply made any sense..which it does not...if a mortgage check was to bounce do you really think you would lose the roof over your head because of it? It takes a lot more then that to force a foreclosure on a homeowner..do some research before you post there buddy.Unless the customer actually is how you call them ..a "junkie loser"..then they may not care about losing the house. But in the real world..the customer will make a deposit to cover the mortgage and pay the fees for overdrafting. Now on the other hand..If 9 other fees are on there as well from transactions that had the funds at the time..and were cleared, but due to re-sequencing are suddenly considered overdrafts as well..then yes they are going to be pissed off and probably lodge complaints and reports..I can't really blame them for that.

Now sure if the customer does not have OD protection..the check would not be covered if there were not enough funds..and yes..the customer would recieve 2 fees possibly..OD and NSF..but this is not near as bad as 3 or 4 hundred dollars in fees because the bank continues to allow the card to be used after the funds are depleted. I mean how does the bank not know the card was stolen..what precautions do they take to actually "protect" our money? apparently NONE..unless it profits them..

"Well, I'd imagine right now my good friends Edward and Ronny G and preparing a rebuttal filled with bogus stats that support the negligence of the average overdrafter, so I'll wrap this up..."

Can you produce any bogus stats that Edward or myself ever used? Because if not..then correct..it is perhaps overdue time you wrapped it up.

"Overdrafters: get sober, learn to read what you're signing, and take responsibility for your lives. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes. Get off of welfare and get a job and finally, quit being a burden to society."

I have a strange feeling you may be drunk or on drugs..or both. because this statement is COMPLETELY 100% indisputably BOGUS...and once again..you did it..a 10.5 on the Richter scale for ignorance. How does this report have anything to do with welfare? If anything..the banks have needed quite a bit of "welfare"..would you not agree? I am sure the unemployed are really impressed with your douchebaggedness..and wish there were jobs out there during a recession..maybe you want to hire someone? You do know that unemployment goes up during a recession..right? You know businesses shut down or cut hours...heck..look how many people the wonderful banks have laid off..have you read a freaking newspaper recently?

And read the information posted..you will find that the banks made PLENTY of profit from overdraft fees. So perhaps you have ONE point from all your ignorant blathering...and that is if no one ever overdrafted..it would really get back at the banks. Since chances are a few would have been long gone if not for all the fees. But then I am the LAW..tell us...tell us in your infinite wisdom..what would the banks have done to make up

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

First a quick educational lesson, since you can't keep up. I combined your screen name with your persistent opinions about overdrafters, labeling all of them druggies and losers without merit, and I came up with the sarcastic, yet brilliant analogy of Kangaroo Court. By definition it is ''A sham legal or court proceeding that denies due process and the outcome is determined in advance''. In a Kangaroo Court you're guilty until proven innocent, but you never get a chance to prove your innocence. You should be ashamed that overdrafting druggies would be familiar with this, but not a financially impeccable, brilliant mind like yourself. Back to the subject at hand:

FACT: Re-Sequencing doesn't matter for the bank or the customer thanks to all of the mandatory Overdraft Protection and Courtesy Overdraft. It doesn't matter if banks post transactions from smallest to largest, largest to smallest, inside out, upside down, or sideways. Since everything will be paid and nothing returned, the posting order is now irrelevant.

Please feel free to respond as often as you like to any of my posts. But at the same time, please also do not feel compelled to do so. I'm not responding directly to you looking for a response. I'm responding to your comments only for the record, to give everyone else a different view point. This is the reason you now have to end all of your posts by trying to preempt our rebuttals, because you know you're fighting a losing battle. Notice how Robert is still behind you......way behind you. You should have followed his lead long ago, if you were really as smart as you claim.

''You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em'' -Kenny Rogers

Ronny G,

You're not going to change my opinion of overdrafters, so give it up. They'll all a bunch of drug using, uneducated, slack-jawed, devil worshiping, losers that whine about something that they signed up for and a situation that they created. Customers, by law, must sign a document stating that they have read, understand, and agree to ALL terms of the account before it can be opened. True? So what's your angle here? Where's your legal foundation? Don't like it? Don't sign it. Seems pretty simple to me. USB is breaking NO LAWS with their account policies. Their signatures are on file, partner, so good luck with that court case. Contract law wins, overdrafters lose. Politics and your made up statistics mean nothing. I agree that the overdraft fees are high, but it's so easy to avoid them that anyone that gets one should be euthanized so they don't contaminate the gene pool.   

In addition, I hope you realize that the bail out money USB was offered was REJECTED by the bank. So, yeah, you might want to do some research on things like that before you open your mouth.

 

Ronnie:

I love it when people make transactions when they dont have the funds to cover them.  It pays for my bonuses every year,.  We at the bank call it the stupid person tax.

I would like to add something about O/D protection.  You are right, if you initiate a transaction without the proper funds in your account your account will be charged 35.00 and you have 7 days to pay the overdraft, and the amount they paid out....

Without OD protection, the transaction would have been bounced by the bank, and you still would  have been charged 35.00, plus the vendor would probably send the check back through and you would be charged 35.00 more.  Plus you would probably end up owing the vendor another 35.00.

P L E A S E      D O N T   S T O P   D O I N G   T H I S..... 

We need the revenues, and it shows us how stupid most people are.

 

 

IamGood? Not sure if that's a legit ROR or not, but it's very funny.

"I work for a Bank, and we live for the NSF and O/D Fees..."

Me too, man. Me too. It benefits me by keeping my free account free. Fees are for stupid people.  

IamGood? Not sure if that's a legit ROR or not, but it's very funny.

"I work for a Bank, and we live for the NSF and O/D Fees..."

Me too, man. Me too. It benefits me by keeping my free account free. Fees are for stupid people.  

Oops..I meant I am the Law....a response..

I am well aware I am not going to change your opinion. Even though your opinion is based purely on your personal ignorance and has no bearing on the real world....or any poster I have defended here. So think what you want..no skin off my back if you want to look like an uneducated ignorant fool.

And..you are wasting your time continuing to rebut or debate with Edward and I..since regardless of what you "think"..Edward and I know for a fact the banks are changing the policies to what we feel is more fair and ethical..so once again..if YOU don't like it..complain to the banks...walk into your bank branch in white trash crack town clan central..push all the "slack jawed drug addicts" out of the way..and tell the bank manager you do not like the changes...why are you bothering us anymore with this issue??

And when you state things like "made up statistics" can you kindly provide us with any evidence...or copy and paste any post where any statistic Edward or I ever posted here that were made up? Bet ya can't find any made up statistics..can you?? Oh wait..never mind..I forgot..this is Kangaroo court..don't need any evidence here..all guilty regardless of fact or evidence..my bad.

I am aware USB was "rejected"..well why would anyone want to bail out a bank full of druggies and losers? But my responses deal with more banks then just your bank...Perhaps after the changes go into effect..your bank will fold..or be bought out by a bank that DID receive TARP funds...like so many others.

So I have no need to do any research..my comments are based on facts and common knowledge..not some fantasy world that you live in where anyone who overdrafts is a devil worshiper.

However, by the way you speak..I would not be surprised one bit if your neighbor hood has devil worshipers in it..perhaps they attend the Church of Satan in between overdrafting and crack binges?

"I work for a Bank, and we live for the NSF and O/D Fees"

NEWS ALERT!!  We all know this already..no news here actually.



"I love it when people make transactions when they dont have the funds to cover them.  It pays for my bonuses every year,.  We at the bank call it the stupid person tax."

And you think this bothers me how?? If a customer is aware they were enrolled in overdraft protection..and overdraft with intent..they have.. and always will get a fee for it..no complaints here about that so what is the point? However it is quite presumptuous to state all customers who incur an overdraft are stupid..but I wouldn't expect anything less from a bank employee.

"I would like to add something about O/D protection.  You are right, if you initiate a transaction without the proper funds in your account your account will be charged 35.00 and you have 7 days to pay the overdraft, and the amount they paid out...."

Correct..no debate here..thanks for the news.

"Without OD protection, the transaction would have been bounced by the bank, and you still would  have been charged 35.00, plus the vendor would probably send the check back through and you would be charged 35.00 more.  Plus you would probably end up owing the vendor another 35.00."

This too is not news...why are you telling us FACTS that we already know? Oh...another FACT is...well you would know if you actually read a complaint and not just banter a bunch of common bank procedures that have been going on since Moses was around..if a customer in the above case had used the debit card for other purchases...and all those purchases had the funds available so tecnically were NOT overdradfts..that the bank would charge them overdraft fees ANYHOW..for EVERY SINGLE transaction..be it a cup of coffee..diapers for the baby...heart medication..gas..an ATM withdrawal etc, so instead of just the $35 fee for the OD..and $35 for the NSF....total $70 in fees...they may get hundreds and hundreds of dollars in fees..so is that better?

In addition..you are talking about a check. According to the FDIC report..Most of the fees occurred at point of sale..and ATM withdrawal..so for most people (such as myself) that are not dinosaurs and don't use paper checks anymore..this is a non-issue.

Now for the dinosaurs that still choose to use paper checks in the information age..and they also CHOOSE to opt out of courtesy OD protection...if allowed to by their bank..AND they do bounce a check...then they pay the fees and have no way to lodge a legitimate complaint...is that too hard to understand?

While on this point..and this is actually not something I agree with..but there is talk of some changes being made that would apply different rules to checks and debit cards to avoid this situation...but I actually believe in FAIRNESS..so I say it's all or nothing..if you choose to opt out of OD protection to actually "protect" your money..and then bounce a check..tough beans. I just don't understand why anyone in this day and age would use a paper check..they can get lost..be forged..cashed by anyone...have all kinds of arbitrary and unpredictable holds put on them...way too risky for a person who keeps a low balance in their checking account.

So you UNDERSTAND..I do feel strongly that the customer NEEDS to take measures and be responsible with their account..but at the same time the customer should have a choice regarding overdraft protection..and the bank should supply the "tools" so WE can have more control of our account..nothing unreasonable or unfair to either party..is that so bad?

I guess I am wasting my time trying to reason with ignoramuses who think every overdraft occurs out of "stupidity"..but I only reply here for the same reason Edward does..so others that read this know the truth and the facts about overdraft policies and the banks tactics used to maximize fees...which if by the way unless you are living under a rock..must be aware the changes are coming..well read the posts..all the DATA and statistics are there and 100% accurate and true. Unless you can prove otherwise without using the word "stupid".

Well isn't that nice. I am the law and IamGood. Otherwise known as Frick and Frack.

Quote from I am the law also known and Frick: ''Fees are for stupid people''. Yes indeed, fees are for stupid people who at least know what a Kangaroo Court is, or at least smart enough to Google it before defeatedly admitting they don't know what it is. Don't have the smarts or wits to take all of 30 seconds to Google or look up something, but you would have everyone believe you have read your Terms and Conditions pamphlet from cover to cover. Yeah.......sure.

Quote from IamGood also known as Frack: ''We need the revenues....'' Yes we know your bank needs the revenues, after making all of those flawlessly wise decisions with mortgages, derivatives, credit default swaps, and such. Don't look now but it's not the fees paying your bonuses, it's the tax dollars of millions of hard working americans who had to come to the rescue of fiscally irresponsible banks like yours.

Bailout funds are for stupid banks!

Hmm..seems after 30 seconds of "googling"..and it really wasn't that hard..there seems to be a discrepancy with US bank "not" receiving TARP funds. Oh..they did..and they want to repay it..guess they are doing well enough...

but wait...what about all the "druggies" at the bank causing all the loss by leaving accounts negative?? Seems this bank doesn't want the Tarp funds so they won't be so "scrutinized" by the executives HUGE ginormous bonuses...wow, the druggies and slacked jawed devil worshipers at that bank must be doing something right for that bank...well here is some "made up statistics" or better yet..an ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT from an interview with US bank and ABC news... ...anyone can "google" this if they think I made it up... I am the Kangeroo.

US BANCORP
Received $6.6 billion in TARP funds
1.Since you received TARP funds has there been an increase in lending activity by your
bank, if so by how much?
We will be announcing our fourth quarter and full year 2008 results on Wednesday,
January 21st. Our earnings release and conference call will include details about our
lending activity during the fourth quarter. Until then, it would be inappropriate for us to
comment.
2. What amount of TARP funds have been used to help homeowners who are behind on
their payments or facing foreclosure?
We have been pro-actively reaching out to our mortgage customers who have, or may
have, issues or problems regarding their mortgages for some time. As of September 30,
2008, we reported total restructured loans of $1,180 million, $589 million of which were
residential mortgages and $412 million were credit card loans. As we have previously
indicated, we expect those numbers to increase in 2009. In addition, we recently
announced the acquisition of the Banking operations of Downey Savings and Loan and
PFF Bank and Trust from the FDIC. As part of these transactions, U.S. Bank will modify
the terms of certain acquired residential mortgage loans in accordance with the FDIC
Mortgage Loan Modification Program. The objectives of this program are to improve
affordability, increase the probability of performance, and allow borrowers to remain in
their homes. This program could potentially impact 35,000 borrowers.
3. Does your bank need the TARP infusion; if not have you considered returning the
funds?
We will refer you back to U.S. Bancorp's press release announcing our participation in
the Capital Purchase Program and the reasons why we decided to participate. We
cannot comment on any future actions regarding the program.
4. What will be the total amount awarded in bonuses at your institution this year?
Executive bonus and incentive decisions are reviewed and approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors each January following final yearend
results. They are based on performance and comparisons to stated plan objectives
and peer group performance. Executive salaries and bonuses -- and all related
disclosure -- will be reported in 2009 Proxy Statement, which should be published in
early March.
5. If Congress passes retroactive compensation requirements for TARP Capital Purchase
Program participants, will your bank give back the money?
We cannot comment on any future actions regarding the program.

But wait..there's more:


Meanwhile, U.S. Bancorp recently made moves to free money that could be used to repay its $6.6 billion TARP funds. The Minneapolis-based bank cut its dividend 88% to .05 cents on Wednesday, which would preserve $2.6 billion of capital per year.

U.S. Bancorp president and chief executive officer Richard K. Davis said in a press release the dividend reduction was not done from a position of weakness but "from a position of strength and a desire to continue to invest in and expand our business."

Returning the money would naturally mean they would no longer have to worry about constant criticism from politicians and taxpayers, who have been very vocal, deriding corporate strategies of some banks that received TARP money that include spending on bonuses or making recent M&A deals. Such restrictions may encourage other banks to follow Northern Trust's and U.S. Bancorp's leads. - Gerald Magpily

Ronny G and Edward (who else but the Kangaroo Court?)

I couldn't find anything on Google to support your claims, so you're both lying. Anyone with the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type things on ROR that look like legitimate research articles.

Remember when I said that OD fees were for stupid people? Well, considering the titanic amount of spelling and grammar errors in your respective blogs, I think I've proven my point. See that little check icon with the letters above it? That's a spell checker. Use it.

 

I mean really? Are you seriously kidding me? I must really be bored by continuing this discussion, when there are countless other ROR threads with intelligent, meaningful and productive financial discussions going on. So why am I still here, except for gut wrenching laughs and entertainment at this point.

Not sure if you included the search for Kangaroo Court in your unsuccessful search claims, but just for the record and clarity, anyone with [and I quote] ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type'' the phrase 'Kangaroo Court' on Google and find the VERY FIRST entry for Wikipedia with a detailed description, followed by the SECOND SEARCH RESULT and subsequent search results all with dictionary definitions. Anyone with [and I quote] ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type'' the phrase 'US Bank TARP' on Goggle and discover the more than 600,000+ search results from various news articles. Yes, you have to be kidding.

So, if one cannot do either of these, then we're to conclude that said person doesn't even have [and I quote], ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart''. Don't look now, but not only is Robert 100% behind you [waaaay behind you], but now your partner in crime [Yes, pun intended] IamGood is sneakily backing away as well. Where's old Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain when you need them? Oh here they are, just in time and right on cue.

''It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” (Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln)

I will now do what I've often criticized others for when I say, this will be my last post here. But I will qualify this statement by saying, I withhold the right to return, once a meaningful and productive financial discussion resumes. Otherwise it's a waste of precious resources. You've done enough damage to yourself without my continued assistance.

I mean really? Are you seriously kidding me? I must really be bored by continuing this discussion, when there are countless other ROR threads with intelligent, meaningful and productive financial discussions going on. So why am I still here, except for gut wrenching laughs and entertainment at this point.

Not sure if you included the search for Kangaroo Court in your unsuccessful search claims, but just for the record and clarity, anyone with [and I quote] ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type'' the phrase 'Kangaroo Court' on Google and find the VERY FIRST entry for Wikipedia with a detailed description, followed by the SECOND SEARCH RESULT and subsequent search results all with dictionary definitions. Anyone with [and I quote] ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart can type'' the phrase 'US Bank TARP' on Google and discover the more than 600,000+ search results from various news articles. Yes, you have to be kidding.

So, if one cannot do either of these, then we're to conclude that said person doesn't even have [and I quote], ''the brain of a stale Pop-Tart''. Don't look now, but not only is Robert 100% behind you [waaaay behind you], but now your partner in crime [Yes, pun intended] IamGood is sneakily backing away as well. Where's old Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain when you need them? Oh here they are, just in time and right on cue.

''It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” (Mark Twain/Abraham Lincoln)

I will now do what I've often criticized others for when I say, this will be my last post here. But I will qualify this statement by saying, I withhold the right to return, once a meaningful and productive financial discussion resumes. Otherwise it's a waste of precious resources. You've done enough damage to yourself without my continued assistance.

Okay Captain Kangaroo...what is your point? It seems to be to continuously prove yourself to be a total ignorant jackass....and if that's the case..you have succeeded.

First off..you apparently do not even know how to use google...my 5 year old cousins have no problem at all...so you need lessons I guess??

Now you say Edward and I are both "lying"? Because you do not know how to use google or substantiate facts? Well the good news is anyone who reads these reports and actually CARES..will know who is stating fact..and who is a loser. Well then again the Judge Jury and executioner of the Kangaroo court does not need to substantiate facts..right? Everyone is stupid but you I guess.

You are worried about spelling errors? That is how you substantiate facts?

Well if I copy and paste something I am not going to spell check it Mr. stale pop tart (oh..does a stale pop tart have any less brains then a fresh pop tart?? Just curious since you use that as an example.)

As far as finding legitimate "research articles"..you are the one who is supposed to know how to research...I only posted FDIC reports..and a transcript from an interview with YOUR bank...and ABC news..

And what are these "respective blogs" you speak of..I have not posted anything from a blog..are you on crack again?

Oh and you don't need to use any "little check icons" for spell check on my computer...I do not know what you use...but any word that I was to misspell or mistype..is clearly underlined in RED so even a pop tart could notice.

If you need help finding the FDIC report..or the transcript from the ABC NEWS interview...just copy and paste a few lines from either into a google search..is that really too difficult for you???

If you want to read the ENTIRE report..(yeah right LMAO)..just google "FDIC bank reports". If you want to find the ABC news transcript..just google "abc news bancorp"..it should be right on the first page..maybe one or two down at most. Even a pop tart can do this..right?

Hey Ronny Girl, since you're fan of internet searches, look at what I found. This is a piece of an article about federal bailout money from Twin Cities BizJournals. I've underlined the really important things for you. Read on...

...U.S. Bank was told, not asked, to participate in the program, which is a Darwinian attempt to “synthesize” weaker banks into stronger banks through consolidation, Davis said at the forum, held at Thrivent Financial for Lutherans in Minneapolis. U.S. Bank (NYSE: USB) sold $6.6 billion in preferred stock with warrants to the U.S. Treasury in November through its capital purchase program.

A spokesman for U.S. Bank later said that Davis meant the banking industry as a whole was pressured to participate in TARP.

Once the country’s other large banks announced they were participating in the program, that forced U.S. Bank to participate from a competitive standpoint, said U.S. Bank spokesman Steve Dale.

Nine of the nation’s largest banks, including local U.S. Bank competitor Wells Fargo & Co., had announced their participation in TARP at the end of October. U.S. Bank’s TARP transaction was recorded on Nov. 14, along with TCF Financial Corp., which sold $361 million in preferred stock as part of the program.

“There’s no A, R or P in TARP,” Davis said, adding that “troubled” is the only word in the phrase that’s accurate. “The ‘asset relief program’ has yet to occur.”

The problems with the U.S. Treasury Department’s program are that its goals and rules have changed since its inception last fall, it’s poorly defined and it’s caused collateral damage to healthy banks.

Davis said he would be “darned” if Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank would suffer collateral damage from the government’s “sloppy attempt at nationalizing the [banking] industry.”

The Twin Cities is lucky to have large, strong, healthy banks such as U.S. Bank, Wayzata-based TCF Financial Corp., St. Paul-based Bremer Bank and Wells Fargo & Co., which is based in San Francisco but has a large Minnesota presence, Davis said.

Other cities have tried to lure U.S. Bank away from Minneapolis, but Davis said that as long as he’s leading the company, it will keep its headquarters in the Twin Cities.

So, as I stated before, this bailout money idea was REJECTED by USB from the beginning. It wasn't asked for. I'm also seeing words such as "strong" and "healthy" to describe USB. So, that being said, you've been shown up again. Keep responding, it's entertaining for me to see what nonsense you'll come up with next.

To I am the law in the Kangaroo Court,

Your earlier quote: ''I couldn't find anything on Google to support your claims, so you're both lying''.

Now your current quote: ''look at what I found. This is a piece of an article about federal bailout money from Twin Cities BizJournals''.

When anyone types the words 'US Bank Tarp' in Google, the TOP FIVE searches all pull from this same article that you reference. Funny how you missed this so easily before. But very good. You get a cookie. Now try the same trick with the words 'Kangaroo Court' and see what you find as the #1 result at the TOP OF THE LIST! It's neat isn't it. Almost magical.

You're a fraud, as has been proven time and time again. No not by my doing. By your own doing, as I have to hold back Abe Lincoln and Mark Twain who are itching to let loose again.

What's the status of those letters to US Bank CEO Richard Davis, the Federal Reserve, and the Ohio Congressional Delegation? Oh wait. My bad. It's no longer Ohio but now it's the Illinois Congressional Delegation you should be complaining to.

You see ladies and gentlemen. The Kangaroo Court has no borders or boundaries. It's reach is limitless. Where will it hold court next? Stay tuned.....

Plain and simple, banks and its customers can be summed up in two very easy statements:

1.) Banks are a business, and as a business they look to make profits. These profits come from many different areas. One being Interest differentiation on credit accounts and deposit accounts. And, of course another one being on fees.

2.) We live in a society that expresses itself with how much you own, what you drive, what clothes you wear. So not only do people have to try to keep up if they have the money, people who do not have the money try to keep up as well. Its simple, people spend more money than they have and that is one way banks make a profit. On people's own stupidity to outspend each other. If you make $700 a week, save some of it and buy something nice if you really need it. Don't spend $800 a week and say, "Well, I have overdraft protection so it is okay."

The man claiming to be the law is right. Banks offer overdraft protection because they know people are going to use it. Either way, that person is going to o/d their account because they are going to spend more than they have. We live in a capitalist economy and it is smart to offer the protection, because yes, it is a great service to people who always overdraft their account. It saves them money. So they can spend even more than they have. It's brilliant.

All banks have their special ways they do overdraft protection. Chase bank actually includes your protection in your available balance. And yes, it is difficult to get overdraft protection because it is a service which requires a customer to have a fairly decent credit score. If you have a horrible credit score, it just means you will use it and obviously default on yet another credit obligation. I feel as if the law might not have the best credit and I am sorry but that is your own damn fault. I believe a monkey could have a credit score of at least 600 because to attain that score all you have to do is pay your bills by the date it is due. Tough concept.

The banking industry will never change. No matter who complains and sues, the policies will never change, at least not drastically. They clearly state out how to balance a register, when funds are available, what days are considered a business day, and which days are holidays. I do not understand how people overdraw their account and believe it is the banks fault. The only thing that is "shady" is when certain banks pay the highest sum first (which is usually the most important) which then may result is overdraft fees for smaller amounts. I am not saying balancing an account is easy, it's just that people are lazy. There are certain months when I am close, but I just tighten up and only spend on necessities. I don't care for o/d protection because one day I might want to dip into it. It is your money people, take account for it. It is not the banks job to monitor every account and balance every register to make sure you do not overdraw your account. That is where overdraft protection comes in. For the lazy. For the over spenders. For the people who don't care.

All in all, a system is a system. And if you don't want to live in this system then please, get the hell out. Go to Canada, play with their money.

You know what debunk means...right?? well if not..here is from the dictionary..and guess what..I didn't make this up either...


debunk - Verb-   expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas.

Now for a test..google the word "pretentious"... all by yourself. Another cookie if you can.

No..it doesn't bother me that you called me Ronny Girl...just demonstrates your maturity level. And besides...maybe I am a girl...how would you know if I was or wasn't? But we all certainly know what you are..you haven't hid it very well.

Like Edward says..good for you..have a cookie..you know how to do a search now. And what did you find? That Your bank received TARP funds. And that is what I said. So what was false or made up? Care to explain? So they rejected it..the point is you brought up that I was "making up statistics and using phony research".

So YOU just proved otherwise...by actually doing something un-kangaroo court like.... attempted to substantiate a fact..very good for you..have a pop tart.

Oh..you bring up that you are seeing words such as "strong" and "healthy".  Hmmm...I seem to recall a little whiny baby kangaroo crying about how all the druggies and losers and devil worshipers are causing so much loss to the bank by leaving accounts negative...and how that hurts your feelings so much. Better call the wambulance.

And here you present evidence to the contrary...that YOUR bank..supposedly devastated by the junkies and losers and devil worshipers according to you..is actually "strong" and "healthy".

Thanks for backing me up brah..appreciate it...saved me a little typing.

To I am the law in the Kangaroo Court,

Well now you only have two letters to write, as the effort is now too late for the Federal Reserve, so don't bother sending that letter to them. Their minds are made up.

The Federal Reserve Board Governor, Daniel K. Tarullo, told a US Senate subcommittee on Wednesday that the Federal Reserve will 'most likely' enforce new rules requiring that consumers opt-in to any form of overdraft protection before the banks can open their flood gates with fees.

This is the much anticipated ruling the Federal Reserve Board said they would make before the end of the year. It had become increasingly clear in recent months the Feds would enact some form of new rules surrounding OD protection. But the unresolved question centered around which way it would be enforced. Should it be opt-in, where the banks couldn't do anything without the consumers expressed consent in advance? Or should it be opt-out, where the banks could do whatever they wanted by default, but then give the consumer the option to say no thanks afterwards. Well, it appears the Feds have decided on the opt-in choice. Another hint about how the tide is tilting around ripoff bank fees. And don't forget these are bankers themselves. How's that as a vote of confidence?

Nothing left now but to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's and wait for the ink to dry. But

"Wrong again. This is not a communist dictatorship here. It is a democracy."

Sorry but you are mistaken.  The U.S is NOT a democracy.  The U.S. is a democratic republic-there is a HUGE difference between a democracy and a democratic republic.  We have a (nowadays so-called) representative government.  Once these clowns are in office, they seem to be able to pretty much do what they wish legislatively.

Further, we are being transformed into a socialist state at an increasing speed of late. At the current pace of the democratic party (with some help from the Republicans) we should be the United Socialist States of America by 2015.

The government currently OWNS half of the U.S. auto industry and one third of the U.S. banking industry.  Currently the government is moving to control/own the medical industry.  Our government also owns a good portion of the housing industry and Congress is making noises about purchasing even MORE.

Also, it's only a matter of time before Obama's Army of Czars controls everything.  It's only a matter of time before his "corporate compensation czar" gets around to DICTATING corporate officer compensation to the little corporations (self-employed folks as I) with as few as three folks on the payroll. 

Get your verbs right, Ronny G.

When I did a Google search for USB requesting TARP, I found nothing. When I did a more general search, "US BANK Tarp", I found the article that I posted in my previous ROR.

Basically, you claimed that USB ASKED for Tarp funds. They did not. Check the article. You obviously lied. USB was FORCED to take Tarp funds. Asked for versus  being forced.. big difference... ask your wife. 

Debunk that, overdrafter.

 

Ronny G, I hope you don't ever own your own business because it would be bankrupt in a month.

Let me explain a little something to you about the nature of profit and business. You keep quoting that banks made some ungodly amount of profit this year in each of your ROR's. (38 billion if memory serves me.) My response to that is: so what? That figure is totally irrelevant.

Businesses try to predict what they're going to earn and lose each quarter (or year). Anything sustained over and above their expected their losses gets passed onto the customers in some form or another. This is true of any business. So basically, if enough idiots overdraft their accounts and then bail on the bank (very, very common with overdrafters), that loss is made up for by the bank decreasing payouts on CD's and savings accounts, increasing loan, credit card, and mortgage interest rates, and imposing or increasing fees for other services. So, good customers get stuck footing the bill for the bad ones. It doesn't matter if the bank made a gazillion dollars this year, this action would still occur because people are causing the bank to go over their expected losses.

In the nutshell, overdrafters are the reason that overdraft fees are so high and why customer benefits are going in the crapper. If you're fine with that situation, you have some severe mental problems. Quit making excuses for irresponsible people.

Get your verbs right, Ronny G.

"When I did a Google search for USB requesting TARP, I found nothing. When I did a more general search, "US BANK Tarp", I found the article that I posted in my previous ROR."

Here is a verb for you...why do you continue to embarrass yourself?

Why would I care what you put in YOUR google search? What does that have to do with anything? I am glad you figured out how to use the browser on your computer or enter words into a search...we gave you a cookie, not even a stale one..what do you want now..a medal?

"Basically, you claimed that USB ASKED for Tarp funds. They did not. Check the article. You obviously lied. USB was FORCED to take Tarp funds. Asked for versus  being forced.. big difference... ask your wife."

First off....I won't even stoop to your level and call you a liar..but perhaps you are hallucinating from whatever you are putting in you tea? Show me..now that you know how to copy and paste I assume...well okay...show me where I ever stated "USB" asked for Tarp funds..I will wait patiently. If I had implied that "USB" received TARP funds...well you verified my claim with your posting after Edward and I explained to you how to use Google..and how to verify facts..and you performed quite impressively I might add.

And I do not have a wife so stop posting lies please. If I did do you think she would let me be on here this much debating with imbeciles?

So this was a fail for you I am the Law...maybe you better look for typos again..as all the others end up resorting to when they are losing and clutching at straws.

"Debunk that, overdrafter."

Officially debunked thank you very much....next ..... And BTW.. I don't overdraft...I couldn't if I wanted to..I opted out of overdraft so called "protection" so if some devil worshiping junkie steals my card they can't run it until the bank decides it is enough..I like to be responsible for my money..and I don't need any short term loans from the bank at 3000% interest rates..I can use a loan shark for much less if I wanted to be in debt.

But if you actually read the reports and not just baseless rambling to make a fool of yourself over and over and over..you would have already have known this..and not made a fool of yourself AGAIN.

"Wrong again. This is not a communist dictatorship here. It is a democracy."

"Sorry but you are mistaken.  The U.S is NOT a democracy.  The U.S. is a democratic republic-there is a HUGE difference between a democracy and a democratic republic.  We have a (nowadays so-called) representative government.  Once these clowns are in office, they seem to be able to pretty much do what they wish legislatively."

Well I certainly didn't expect this to become a political discussion..but I should have expected you to take things that literally..well anything in attempt to discredit a banking customer defender..all is fair..right? Touche'

Well we are in it now..and I have to admit that some statements here you posted have merit...some, may be debatable. But I will add that perhaps it isn't supposed to be that way..but you have to admit, this is what we have become..like it or not..

Or what Thomas Jefferson says about the subject..."A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine"

So was I that "mistaken" in stating this is a Democracy has opposed to a Communist dictatorship?? It appears we are quite a bit more like a Democracy...which my only implication in using that term was to prove a simple point. That if injustice is being done (remember the Boston tea party?)..Americans fight to make change, we do not sit idle and take it...guess it wasn't apparent to you what I meant so I hope this cleared it up for you.

"Further, we are being transformed into a socialist state at an increasing speed of late. At the current pace of the democratic party (with some help from the Republicans) we should be the United Socialist States of America by 2015."

Robert??? Are you Glen Beck?  Kidding aside..he is a bit of an alarmist..but I am a fan. I am open to all views and all sides of the issues..and I side for what I feel is right for myself and my Country...best made decisions when you are open to all sides..I don't judge a person by any labels or what party they a registered under..I judge them by the content of their character..that was very Martin Luther King"esk"..but I think it is the right way to live..it's about fairness.

Now..am I happy we are heading toward socialism?? No..not really. But my sister lives in Norway and I have a lot of family there. Now I would not like to live there..I am American to the core..but my sister and her family are very happy..and it is nice to visit a country that bases it policies and foundation on FAMILY and COMMUNITY..and not just greed..Robert..it is kind of refreshing..in short to medium doses.

"The government currently OWNS half of the U.S. auto industry and one third of the U.S. banking industry.  Currently the government is moving to control/own the medical industry.  Our government also owns a good portion of the housing industry and Congress is making noises about purchasing even MORE."

Everything the Government invests in..is doomed to failure. Well they invested in GM..a failing company...the banks..all failures..so I expect soon a visit to the hospital will be more akin to a visit to the Post Office..so as you can tell..I am not a big fan of any Government meddling in our health care system..I have no problem with it personally. The insurance companies on the other hand...well lets just say it can use some looking into. Not to say there is not plenty of fraud going on against the insurance companies too...but we are talking peoples health here..perhaps both parties can put a little greed aside?

Now next time my GM vehicle has troubles..which is quite often as it is built like a piece of manure..I will be sure to pull it into the White House and request Obama warranty the defect for me.

"Also, it's only a matter of time before Obama's Army of Czars controls everything.  It's only a matter of time before his "corporate compensation czar" gets around to DICTATING corporate officer compensation to the little corporations (self-employed folks as I) with as few as three folks on the payroll. "

I have been more afraid of the banks for a while..then I have of Obamas Czars. Once the bank issues are sorted out...hopefully the next president will be able to do something to bring back prosperity and entrepreneurship..which this country needs...but still protect the average working and less well off  from corporate greed. This Country can thrive without corruption..regardless of what Karl believes..and one day the world can and will look up to us again..and want to be like us,...not kill us.

To I am the law, in the Kangaroo Court:

Okay, we have Exhibit A against US Bank CEO Richard Davis where he makes the boneheaded business decision to throw away (B)illions of dollars in overdrat fee profits with the policy changes, all for a bunch of druggies and losers. And now you're telling us we have Exhibit B where their business savvy is highly suspect again.

Quote #1: ''Businesses try to predict what they're going to earn and lose each quarter (or year)''.

Quote #2: ''So basically, if enough idiots overdraft their accounts and then bail on the bank (very, very common with overdrafters),...''

Quote #3: ''Anything sustained over and above their expected their losses gets passed onto the customers in some form or another.''

So, it's very very common that overdrafters are going to bail, but then when they do, it's all of sudden unexpected and out of left field? The banks have more losses than what they expected even though it's very very common? I suspect you're placing too much faith in the powers that be at US Bank. But I'll play devil's advocate with you. Of course if a bank suffers more losses from one area, they will make up for it with profits from another area.

You mean like when all of the overdraft ripoff policies began to surface several years ago, coincidentally, when interest rates began to fall? Oh, and please, please keep ignoring me. I take at it as the highest compliment possible. You should have quit while you were behind. ;)

Ronny G and Edward: Classic examples of people that don't know when they've been beaten (by me or life in general). Their response to constantly being proven wrong is false facts, lies, deviating off of the point and a misplaced comment of "NO, WE BEAT YOU!". Very mature. (See previous posts.) Seems to me like the ones who got stuck with overdrafts due to their own stupidity were the ones that were beaten. Oh well....

I'm bored trying to argue logically with these nitwits. God himself could come down from Heaven and back me up and they'd still whine that they're right. No sense in trying to continue. I'm sure that they're going to fire back with a "Yay! We won!" comment. I'm not even going to respond. It's a waste of my time. I'm just going to smile when I look at my bank balance and know that I never have and never will pay an overdraft fee like those two chumps. I am kind of sad, though. I figure if they can't even follow a few simple rules to maintain a bank balance, you can imagine what their lives must be like. Their homes must be filthy, their children and their own bodies uncared for, and they must have a stack of unpaid bills a mile high. They probably can't hold jobs either due to their reluctance to play by the rules. They probably abuse drugs and get welfare, too. Most overdrafters do. It's kinda sad.

Good luck in all of your endeavors, overdrafters. May I suggest a Google search for "How to avoid overdrafts" or "How to keep an accurate check register"? I hope you clean up your lives. 

 

 

HEY GOOGLE THIS:

BANK DEFENDER TEACHES PEOPLE HOW TO USE A CHECK REGISTER


You will see how OBAMA is going to stop the EVIL banks from charging fees.

YOU SHOULD WRITE HIM A LETTER AND LET HIM KNOW THAT YOU AREN"T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.

Man. This thread is priceless.

Banks Change Overdraft Fee Policies - Video - FOXBusiness.com

Go ahead..click the link...

And watch a video from Fox business news concerning how Bank of America and JP Morgan-Chase are changing some policies...


Learn how OBAMA is going to save hard working Americans from all these excessive fees during a recession, whether you use a register or NOT..IMAGINE THAT??

This could help cut down on some financial hardship to those out of work or have cut hours due to an economic crisis..IMAGINE THAT??

Even the bank defender on the video made an announcement to B of A..."please stop calling me every day trying to sell me stuff!!!" Imagine that???

Learn how JP Morgan-Chase will no longer "automatically" force anyone into courtesy overdraft protection..imagine that..you won't even need to be bothered with a register anymore if buying a cup of coffee..since if the funds are not there that you thought were "available"..the card won't work..imagine that?? No more $35.00 cup of coffee..what will the banks do????

Oh..and no more re-sequencing transactions..imagine that....no unnecessary manipulations or the bank changing times of transaction occurrence...they will now process transactions as they come in...hmmm..may even make the bank statement "slightly" resemble what your REGISTER will look like...imagine that??...less deception and confusion.

I am willing to bet once these changes are in effect..we will see less reports here regarding these banks and the RIP OFF overdraft fees..IMAGINE THAT???? Only LEGITIMATE overdrafts will be possible..so no more need to lodge reports for it..IMAGINE THAT???

So watch the video from fox business news..."google" it..anyone can...and listen to the voice of REASON...imagine that??? Customers may no longer be able to overdraft at a point of sale or ATM..where most of these occur according to the FDIC report..IMAGINE THAT??

I find it interesting that those of us that know how to manage a simple checking account & subsequent check register don't seem to have a problem with NSF fees or any other supposed shady or suddenly changed bank business practices.  How a bank processes your transactions is not an issue as long as you are not spending money you don't have.

Stop crying, learn from your mistakes, take some personal responsibility like a grown adult, stop using your debit card, use a check register AND balance your account EVERYDAY, live within your means, stop the instant gratification purchases, and VOILA,  somehow those banks seem a whole lot nicer. 

Thanks for a great response - Seems we are back to the me me me society - blame everyone and everything for problems that we created ie: overdrafting your account and blaming the bank

Grow up, maintain a check register, reconcile your monthly bank statement and stop using your debit card as if it were a credit card - Simple but complicated to some - If you cannot manage your finances then hire someone to do it or keep your money in a jar - Jees

I await Karl and his "google this" crap

1) IF no one was to ever overdraft again..for any reason..what would the banks do to make up for all the revenue brought in by said overdraft fees? If you do not know the staggering amount they brought in so far this year alone..read the FDIC report.."anyone" can 'google" it.

2) IF no one is ever expected to overdraft ...why would the banks find it necessary to re-sequence our transactions?

3) IF overdrafting is so irresponsible and such a bad thing..why do/did the banks continue to enroll us in the forced mandatory "automatic" courtesy overdraft protection service?

So here I am..repeating the same thing over and over..which is.. Speaking for myself..I have nothing against the banks charging a fee for overdrafting or bounced checks..never did...never will. Especially if the overdraft or bounced check was done with intent. There are those that feel the fee itself is way too high considering it cost the bank nothing really if a deposit is quickly made to cover the transaction..but since I do believe in fair play..that if the bank tells you they charge a $35.00 fee for OD or NSF...and you incur that by intent..you pay the fee and move on..can not blame the bank or accuse them of any tactics for that...it was the customers fault all the way.

Now on the other hand..if a customer overdrafts with intent..and only expected to pay the fee as per agreed to by the bank...but then is hit with many additional overdraft fees that were charged to transactions that had the funds at the time of transaction..but due to the BANKS manipulations..it was "falsely" created and charged as an overdraft.

Now surely even the most unreasonable clod can tell this customer did not expect all those additional fees...so there was no "intent" on the customers part to overdraft the transactions that the banks tactics caused..not the customer. And this is why my friends...the feds needed to step in. Because it is theft, scam, deception, manipulation, rip pff, pilfering, fleecing and just plain wrong..for any BS reason the bank tells us they re-sequence OUR account for, or have the audacity to call this "con"..a courtesy.

Next example...A customer does not wish to have overdraft protection..because maybe they lost their job..keep a low balance..fear fraudulent activity..never use checks...it is in THEIR best interest NOT to have overdraft protection. So what is so wrong about the banks allowing opt out?...or simply not "automatically" enrolling a customer in the service without consent and approval?

I guess it is not wrong..since the banks themselves are making these changes soon..so I won't be needed here nearly as much..and those who are unhappy with the changes since they won't have near as many banking customers to bash, kick around and blame here..may even consider a better hobby then being assholes to banking customers who were legitimately RIPPED OFF...because in my world..any fee charged that was caused by a bank manipulation...is an overcharge..which is considered by it's very definition .... has a classic rip off.

A legitimate fee for a legitimate overdraft on the other hand??? Totally fair and in that case I take the banks side if someone was to lodge a complaint regarding that.

Ronnie: I guarantee that there will be MORE posts after this change than before about banks ripping people off. The more the government interferes, the worse it gets. 

To I am the law, from the Kangaroo Court:

Through all of your numerous posting ramblings, you have consistently failed to indicate if you have put as much effort into writing letters to the US Bank CEO Richard Davis, and your local Congressional Delegation, as you have done posting on this thread. After all, they're the ones with the power to do something about it. In fact, all of them are doing something about it. Your CEO Richard Davis, Congress and the Federal Reserve Board are all taking steps to crack down on abusive overdraft fee policies. In a much anticipated ruling before years end, the Federal Reserve Board just announced this week, that they will soon be enacting new rules preventing banks from auto-enrolling customers into Overdraft Protection programs by default, without the customers consent. From now on, customers will have to opt-in.

FACT: Re-Sequencing doesn't matter for the bank or the customer thanks to all of the mandatory Overdraft Protection and Courtesy Overdraft. It doesn't matter if banks post transactions from smallest to largest, largest to smallest, inside out, upside down, or sideways. Since everything will be paid and nothing returned, the posting order is now irrelevant.

FACT: Thanks to mandatory overdraft protection, when your debit card is lost or stolen, not only does the thief get to wipe out the $1,000 in your account, but even after all the money is gone, the thief gets to keep on spending for thousands more. Yeah, that sure helped the customer out didn't it? What a courtesy. And the customer didn't even ask for it.

No need to respond with a 'Yay, I won' comment. That's too petty and it's really not about winning or losing. I tend to let my unchallenged statements speak for themselves (on the record), which is why you're so paranoid about it. Psychology studies indicate that paranoia is probably more of a reflection of yourself, same as your infatuation with druggies, losers, unclean homes, and hygiene, all of which have nothing to with the discussion. But you're the only one constantly introducing it, not anyone else. It's also kind of ironic, since you're also the one who chides customers for not wanting to ''follow the rules''. Seems you're abusing your own policy when it comes to debating.

But I don't see how you could win..it is theoretically impossible to lodge a legitimate rip off report regarding this topic once these changes are put into effect..I will explain...

Now as far as the typical complaints we read here one after the other piling in on an hourly basis...I truly can not imagine why those will not decease substantially. Since most of the complaints are not regarding legitimate overdraft fees..only ADDITIONAL fees that occurred by the unnecessary and un-requested re-sequencing of transactions. So once the banks stop that tactic...I can't imagine how it will be possible for any fees to result due to the banks manipulations...any and all overdrafts caused by INTENT of the customer...will not be able to be considered a rip off per day..since although a customer may feel the fee is too high if they were to overdraft..they can not with any credibility accuse the banks of using any tactics,manipulations..or deception to have caused any fees to occur..since it will be IMPOSSIBLE for that type of fee(s) to occur.

Now....any customer who chooses to opt in to the courtesy overdraft protection service..and then complains about receiving an overdraft in the event of an overdraft..better have a VERY good story..because since the banks will either be asking if the customer wants the service...and/or not "automatically" enrolling them in it...well who could they possibly blame if they overdraft the account?..and receive a fee for it. If they did complain here...we could politely state.."ask your bank to opt you out of OD protection..and then it won't happen again"  viable solution.

Scenario 3 is a customer chooses to opt out...or does not request to opt in if the bank does not automatically enroll them anymore...so now the worst complaint can only be something like this...."I went to use my card to pay for a doctors visit..and the card was declined...can you imagine that..I CHOSE to opt out of overdraft protection..and the bank had the NERVE to decline the card when the balence went below zero"...

Do you see how silly that sounds Ashely? Now sure..some people will complain no matter what..nobody is claming these changes are expected to please everyone..nor stop a complaint against the banks from ever happening again. But if this has been enough of a problem to drive the BANKS THEMSELVES into making these changes..to finally get congress off their lazy gridlock asses and FINALLY do something for the poor and working class..like they have been promising for 50 freaking years, a give some customers more choices on how THEY see fit to protect their money...personal responsibility..right Ashely?? Then I really can't see how in all logic...these changes can possibly lead to more complaints.

So I am glad you take my bet..and I will be here to collect..whatever it may be.just an "I told you so" ..but do you care to explain to me how the reports against the banks can possibly increase after the changes are made, and what these complaints can be regarding? And please don't use the gas pump nonsense..we debunked that one a while ago. Until I ever see a single customer complain that any customer who CHOSE to opt out of OD protection..and were allowed to fill the tank past balance for a fee regardless... it is a non issue.

I'm not sure how you debunked the gas pump thing. The gas station i always buy gas from will only charge my card 1$ at the time of purchase. The full amount is charged the next day usually. Which will cause issues all around.

Why there will be more complaints: Checking account maintenance fees will go up. Its going to be harder to get a checking account for some consumers. The banks will be less forgiving when an overdraft does occur, and it will still not stop the vast majority of overdrafts.

The banks themselves, their employees and their defenders often cite one very important statistic for their side. The vast 'majority' of checking account holders never have any problems with overdrafts. It's only a very small percentage of customers who suffer with chronic overdraft issues. This means someone has been lying to us all this time.

Candidate #1: Several years ago the banks conducted a survey which supposedly indicated 'the majority' of their customers prefer the largest items paid first because those are the important items like mortgages and auto loans. Thus re-sequencing was born. If it's true that 99% of customers have no problems with overdrafts, this means the banks have been lying to us, because why would this 'majority' even care about re-sequencing if they never overdraft with their flawless check registers and overflowing bank accounts?

Candidate #2: If the banks are telling the truth with this survey, this means we have a lot of lying hypocrites. The bank defenders who typically argue in favor of re-sequencing like I am the law, Robert, Ashley, Karen, and Stacey, are also quick to 'suggest' or 'imply' that they know how to keep and balance their check registers like 'the majority' of customers. But if these bank defenders are in favor of re-sequencing because they are truly concerned about the mortgage check getting bounced in favor of that cup of coffee, this means their accounting habits or their check registers are not as impeccable as they claim. Why the need for concern? This is a contradiction.

So, either the banks lied to us about that phantom survey, or some of these bank defenders are lying to us, proven by their own contradicting statements.

I'll get to the gas pump debunking last.

You state that checking account fees will go up..and perhaps they will. But you also constantly give advice for anyone who overdrafted..for any reason..and no matter how the banks unnecessary manipulations brought on all the excessive unnecessary fees..that YOUR way is a surefire guaranteed way to stop overdrafting for good. Okay then..  so tell us Ashely...if everyone followed YOUR advice..and it worked..and no one EVER overdrafted again..what do YOU think the banks will do to make up for all the lost revenues that they would not receive in overdraft fees?

I await your answer with much anticipation...

Next you state..."it is going to be harder to get a checking account for some consumers". Okay..lets say that is true...then why should it be any easier the way the policies are now??

I await this answer as well....

Then you state.."the banks will be less forgiving when an overdraft does occur". So does this imply they have been very forgiving now? Tell that to all the customers who contributed not only to the over 38 BILLION dollars the bank will take in this year..but to the taxpayers who are bailing these very banks out in their time of need.

Lastly you state.."and it will not stop the vast majority of overdraft fees" That is a pretty bold statement..but I ask you this then. If it does not stop the vast majority of fees..then why are you concerned about anything you posted previously?

Now in closing..the gas pump debunkage..this is a long one so get comfortable. If you feel anything stated is wrong..please post the corrections so we can learn.

Thank you..


My response to Robert in a previous post...

Robert posted...

"I really am curious in a few months as to what side you will take when an account holder opts-out.  They then get hit with a $35 overdraft fee, because they pumped $40 in gas with $5 in the account, since they "thought" that it should have been stopped"


Again you with the freaking gas pump. I will state this again very CLEARLY..and this applies to gas pumps or any pump...IF the overdraft is LEGITIMATE...there will be a fee. IF the customer complains about a LEGITIMATE fee..I will be there with you defending the bank. Because if this is what it all has to come down to in our debate... you want to narrow this whole issue down to a gas pump so be it....if the customer is using their debit card as a credit card..they need to be aware that it will be possible to overdraft..or as they call it with a credit card..going "over limit".

I have not read too many complaints here that a customer who was opted out of OD protection was allowed to pump more gas then they had available in their balance..but if this is the worst of the complaints we see here after the changes are put into effect..I think we can live with it. Now I do not know if all banks do this..but once I opted out of OD protection with my bank..I noticed if my balance is below a certain amount..if I swipe the card at the pump...it tells me "the transaction can not be completed..please see associate inside". So perhaps the banks already thought about this? I don't know but either way to me it is a non issue and involves no under-handedness on the banks part..hence no legitimate rip off could be lodged.




Edward response to Robert in a previous post...


Falsehoods About Gas Pump Holds

Ronny G, you found a way to sum up all of these infinite exceptions the bank defenders often throw out:

''I have not read too many complaints here that a customer who was opted out of OD protection was allowed to pump more gas then they had available in their balance..but if this is the worst of the complaints we see here after the changes are put into effect..I think we can live with it''.

Most of the recent fallout against all of these fees is when many banks began the new practice of charging fees for holds. Most banks refer to it as the Unavailable Funds Fee. While a transaction is sitting there ON HOLD, PENDING and UNPOSTED, the bank charges fees for all of the other ten or twenty transactions that post while the 'Available' balance is negative, because of the single, PENDING transaction. The reason the gas pump hold is a non-issue is because gas pump holds NEVER show up as pending transactions. Is that clear enough to end this often used fallacy?

If your Available Balance is $50, and you swipe your card at Walmart for $75 that leaves your Available Balance negative ($25). If you have five small transactions that post while the Walmart transaction is PENDING, all five will be charged a fee, even though your real Posted Account Balance was sufficient to cover all of them.

If you substitute a gas pump transaction for the Walmart transaction in the example above, none of the posting transactions will be charged a fee while the gas pump transaction is on hold because it doesn't show up as PENDING and doesn't affect the Available Balance. Is that clear enough to end this often used fallacy?



Exemployee18..(an actual bank employee's) response to Robert in a previous post...

whoa there Robert
Robert I am afraid you are quite mistaken there buddy.  I can tell you since I have managed quite  a few banks that in fact it does affect your available balance.  If a customer has $20 in their account and they go to the gas station and pay at the pump normally the merchant places a hold of some type normally $1-$75 against their available balance.  So if the customer went out and bought $15 in gas but the merchant held the $75 the customers account would be -$55 and anything else that posted against it would incur an overdraft fee even if they had the money in their account.  Now I can tell you I do not agree with this policy mainly because a customer who kept a good record would have no idea where the fees would be coming from.  But to rebut your last statement yes gas pumps, bars, hotels and rental places DO affect your available balance.

I believe Exemployee18's response was meant for Edward..and not Robert. But either way..whomever is correct...it still will not matter when the policy changes go into effect. Because once the customers account is depleted..any further transactions will be declined..hence no additional OD fees can occur. Most people can live with a single fee for a single overdraft..however..in these rough times...incurring 10 fees due to a SINGLE overdraft..can be devastating.

And as well..without the re sequencing scam...if the customer is charged a fee for going over at the gas pump..as I stated earlier..it won't cause any additional fees but the one overdraft that occured at the pump..since if that transaction overdraws the account..the card will be declined for further use..and as well will give the customer fair chance to investigate why they are overdraft..instead of the bank simply allowing the card to charge 35 dollar cups of coffee..These changes are simply about fairness...not about punishing the banks..as they have been doing to their customers.

It is going to end whether Ashely likes it or not..so she may need to start bashing the banks instead of the banks customers..since the banks apparently are choosing to make these changes as their own decisions...would you not agree?

Does anyone remember the very long, ongoing debate several months ago about the Unavailable Funds Fee? Does anyone remember where that debate started?

The Unavailable Funds Fee debate started many months ago, on all of those Wachovia threads which came flooding in daily, by the dozens. At first, many people, including myself, didn't recognize what the customers were complaining about. Then after much contemplation, the light finally came on for me, and I did my level best and succeeded at enlightening others. Some of the enlightened were even bank defenders who admitted they too recognized the complaint now but they still towed the line of emphasizing consumer responsibility, which is fine.

Now to my point. Can anyone tell me what has happened to all of those Wachovia reports? They're no longer flooding in by the dozens on a daily basis. Here's a quick lesson in Cause-And-Effect.

Cause: Wells Fargo bought Wachovia. Wells Fargo never has and still does not charge the ripoff Unavailable Funds Fee.

Effect: The Wachovia reports dropped off the face of the earth. And no Wells Fargo reports have surfaced in their place.

Ashley, there's the concrete proof to your ''We will see'' comment regarding the upcoming bank policy changes and what will happen with complaints.

P.S. Hey Ronny G, if you haven't already noticed, pretty soon it will just be you and me kid, left to ourselves on the playground as our bank defending playmates continue to disappear as fast as those Wachovia reports. They're frustrated and embarrassed with us shooting down theory after theory, insult after insult. And we do it with sound logic, without having to stoop to their level with off subject, baseless insults of our own.

That is a different issue. Simply changing the opt out rules on a bank account will not cause people to overdraft less.

I stand by my statement. Letting people opt-out of overdraft protection will not lessen reports here. They will increase as people complain about their free checknig accounts no longer being free and other fee hikes.

The gas pump arguements are still flawed. Having managed a gas station for 7 years, I have seen many an account get overdrafted because of pay at the pump. My station would only charge 1$ to the account. The next day when I processed the transactioned we would post whatever dollar amount they purchased. In some cases that could be a full 24 hours that someone could respend that money on accident.

This does not occur inside because when we submit the card for approval we have the total to submit. The gas pump does not know how much gas you are going to get, nor does it know how much you have in your account. All it checks is to see if the account is active and that the 1$ will clear.

" .what do YOU think the banks will do to make up for all the lost revenues that they would not receive in overdraft fees?

I await your answer with much anticipation...

Next you state..."it is going to be harder to get a checking account for some consumers". Okay..lets say that is true...then why should it be any easier the way the policies are now??

I await this answer as well.... "

What do i think the banks would do if all revenue from overdraft fees went away? raise all of their other fees. My guess would be starting with the interest rate on credit cards. They would probably pay less interest on savings accounts and CDs.

Why would it be easier now? Well, if we start implemeting account setup fees, and monthly maintence fees, then less people would be able to afford getting an account. Much like what is happening with credit cards. The government forced more rules upon banks for credit cards, so they became more discriminatory on whom they wanted as a customer.


Also Edward: I'm not defending any sort of bank. I definately am not defending resequencing. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have stated that resequencing is legal and that banks have it in their customer agreement. If you don't like it then don't bank with that bank. One should always read contracts you sign. If people would read their bank agreements and understand what was occuring it would cut down on their overdrafts.  Do I think resequencing is the RIGHT thing for a bank to do? No I dont. I think it is designed to rip off the consumer. I would rather transactions be posted in the order they are recieved by the bank. There's a big difference between what I think is right, and what is legal by the banks.

My beef with overdraft protection is this: It doesn't matter if you have it or not. You will still overdraft. It might stop a few, but if you already have a problem controlling your money you will still find ways to overdraft without the overdraft protection.

Edward wrote:

P.S. Hey Ronny G, if you haven't already noticed, pretty soon it will just be you and me kid, left to ourselves on the playground as our bank defending playmates continue to disappear as fast as those Wachovia reports. They're frustrated and embarrassed with us shooting down theory after theory, insult after insult. And we do it with sound logic, without having to stoop to their level with off subject, baseless insults of our own.

I'm sorry to say that I'm not going anywhere, Edward. You haven't driven anyone away. I'm sorry if my working full time and being a full time student somehow led you to believe that you are driving people away. I post when I have time. As I recall, you disappeared for quite a while yourself. Nobody assumed that they had driven you away.

And I'm afraid that your last line is also incorrect. You do resort to insults (unless you think "bank defender" is a compliment) and you frequently ignore one very sound argument:

Simply staying within one's available balance, being familiar with the bank's funds availability policies and actually keeping accurate records of their finances will virtually eliminate overdraft fees. Anybody can do that right away without having to wait for a lawsuit or a politician who pretends to care. The fact that the vast majority of account holders do not overdraft despite being exposed to the same processing methods  supports this.

You also haven't addressed the fact that when a customer authorizes a bank to process transactions in any order, puts his or her signature down on that agreement and still overdrafts, that customer has a difficult time being credible while crying, "Ripoff!"

I've made this point before and it appears that I should make it again. We both have the same goal - we desire to see customers pay less or no overdraft fees to the bank. The difference is that you seem to have a problem with people such as myself who advocate personal responsibility and you go so far as to resort to name calling. If you really think about it, we're on the same side but you are the one who sees a conflict.

I'm sure you recall how I once called out your subtle sarcastic comments before now. You know, with your cheerleading of lawsuits and constantly coming back later asking how the lawsuit was going, pretending to care. I caught on to it, called you out on it, and then you pretty effectively convinced me there was nothing wrong. You pretty effectively convinced me that you were trying to help everyone else out by asking for the docket numbers and updates to keep everyone informed. Remember how clever I said you were? That's a compliment. What are you whining about?

Well, it appears my instinct was as good as I thought. Because first of all, ever since this incident, I've had no concern or second thought for you or any of your comments. In my previous post, when addressing the 'bank defenders', I didn't even include you in that group. Simply continue reading up just a little bit higher on this thread to my previous post titled ''The Evidence That Someone Is Lying'' where I name names. Notice that your name isn't listed. Trust me. If you were on my radar, you would know it, and there wouldn't be any second guessing. You know I'm not one to be shy or mince words.

Contrary to your belief, I don't have a problem with any of you who advocate personal responsibility. But I do have a problem with the insuation that the policies are completely innocent with no hidden agenda, tricks, traps, or otherwise. Yeah right. That's what I have a problem with and the insults that come with it. That's the reason for the Feds having regulations titled ''Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act''. The same policies the Feds are now updating, not me.

Let me directly address your other point. Not all of these customers have signed on the dotted line, agreeing to these policies. A lot of them were existing customers at these banks or customers of other small town banks which were bought out. Then when the large national banks swoop in with their new ripoff policies, that's when these long time, loyal customers cry foul. Yes, it's true the customer can leave at any time, and many of them do, once they discover the new ripoff policy.

But they still have to right to label it a ripoff, all while at the same time walking out the door with their money from their closed account, as they tell the bank what they can do with their new policy.

As far as your response to Edward...changing opt out rules WILL cause people to overdraft less. If they choose to opt out. ...and I still can't believe we are still on this gas pump. Did the over 38 billion dollars in fees this year come from a gas pump? Have you read any complaints here about a gas pump charging excessive overdraft fees?

 Because I have opted out of courtesy OD protection long ago..with much resistance from the bank. And as I stated...if my balance is below a certain amount..the card will not process at the pump. The screen at the pump says "transaction can not be completed..please see attendant inside"...so do you think by any chance this issue is being dealt with?

Besides..if the customer is opted out of OD protection..and the bank allows a swipe at a gas pump..it is partially the banks fault. I am sure the bank has a defense set up for this sutuation. I do know I would realize it was my fault if I was able to pump more in gas then was in my balance..and I would pay the OD fee regardless..as I stated before..if this is the worst we have to read on ROR after the changes are in effect...we can live with it...non-issue.

As far as no more free checking..or fee hikes...well what do you think would happen if everyone followed yours and the other bank defenders advice to the letter..and never overdrafted again? What would the banks do?? Bank defenders do not like this question and I will tell you why...because it would PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt..without debate needed..that they truly are talking out of both sides of their mouth..and Edward is correct.

Now Ashley, you state  that your "guess" is the bank would raise all of the other fees. So..if this bothers you so much..why do you consistently "teach" all these wicked evil irresponsible overdrafters how to use a register and to read the contracts? Since if they actually listen to you..all the other fees will go up. So do you want to take the blame for that? Do any other bank defenders who offer all this great advice..and consistently belittle customers who were victim to tactics...do any of those wish to step up and take the blame for all the possible future fee hikes if overdrafting was a thing of the past due to YOUR advice?

I await a good answer. I will drink a 35 dollar cup of coffee while I wait. (kidding of course...just had to throw that in).

 If not...then you should be VERY happy your advice is not working...and ours can actually help some customers.

Since with "our" way..the bank will still be able to charge for OD fees...the difference being from the way things are now..that most of the fees will actually be LEGITIMATE fees..so what is so wrong with this?

I still await a good answer. I will eat a 35 dollar big mac while I wait.  (kidding again)

I agree that those who wish to opt into courtesy overdraft protection after the changes are in effect...and still CHOOSE to habitually overdraft..that of course they will need to pay the fees. However..if you take the unnecessary often debunked re-sequencing and manipulations out of the equation..then at least the customer will know what they are being charged for..and have very little to complain about...since the overdrafts will be legit.

And as I stated..if after the changes are in effect a customer still opts in..and still overdrafts..and comes on this site to blame the bank..I will be there along side the other bank defenders..because fair is fair. Yes..can you believe it?..some of us still believe "fairness" is a value.

I think you are wrong ronnie. You think I am wrong. No amount of examples, questions, or counter points will ever convince the other person that they are wrong. So i'm done. I'll post what I have to say to the OP, you can post whatever nonsense you want to, and that will be that. You seem to think, I have some sort of malicious intent on this website.

As fo your questions, I really dont think the bank would start charging new fees right and left if we all stopped overdrafting. This is a purely hypothetical question though, as we both know this will never occur. If everyone stopped and they started charging all sorts of ridiculous fees for having a checking account, well then I would just stop having one. Go back to dealing with cash.

I do HOPE that your idea of changing the opt-out for OD protection works. That would be great. I know that it will accomplish nothing though.

Thank You.

First to Edgeman. When I disappeared for a while, I did so only after discussions on various threads ended with no new updates from anyone. But this doesn't mean I stopped reading the reports. In my occasional browsing of reports, there was simply a lull of activity where there was nothing really to write home about. But the key is, I never simply vanished, smack dab in the middle of a discussion without some sort of closure or hint that I was done. For example, if you and I are in an ongoing discussion and you post a rebuttal directly to me, asking me a question, and then six months or a year go by without a response, that's a disappearing act. I've never done that. And that's what I'm saying the 'bank defenders' are smartly doing now.

Now to Ashely. The back and forth opinions are not always with the intent of persuading the mind of the other person. Many of us know that's impossible. The real intent is that when the 'bank defenders' post their opinion, Ronny G and I take the liberty to post a counter point of view only for the record.  Not for your sake, but for the sake of everyone else reading the thread, mainly the OP. The problem is many of you 'bank defenders' have been spoiled. Years ago on this site, the 'bank defenders' were living it up, throwing around insults and meaningless advice to all of the OP's with not a peep of opposition or anyone to provide counter points. Now that people like Ronny G and myself take the liberty to counter everything with rock solid logic of our own, with cool heads, and without stooping to the level of returning the insults, well this has all of you guys up in arms. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Back to Edgeman. I'll return the favor of your subtle, sarcastic cleverness I referenced in the past. As I mentioned earlier I didn't label you a 'bank defender' with the others earlier. But now that you have inadvertently removed your own sheep's clothing, please explain how labeling you a 'bank defender' is insulting? If you're emphasizing consumer responsibility, and you don't think the bank's policies are unfair, please enlighten me on what in the world we should call it?

might be available soon at the 'BANK OF AMERICA' page of this site. It was posted as a comment about an hour ago.

Wow. This back and forth has gotten ridiculous! There's probably less arguing in the U.N! Just want to throw in my two cents here. Please don't feel obligated to attack me.

I think what this really comes down to is that everyone is correct to some extent. Bank "defenders" are correct in saying that most overdrafters either don't bother to learn the system or simply don't care about their spending habits. The other side is also correct in saying that the fees are very high and can get out of control quite quickly. I have to admit that I'm kind of siding with the bank defenders a little bit. It's been said that most overdrafts come from a small segment of the customer population, so that tells me that the system isn't difficult to master and the bank does tell you that if you overdraft they're going to hit you hard. I don't agree with the dollar amounts of the fees or how often you can get hit with them, but they did tell us about them. Maybe if they'd lower them to about $15 that would make both sides happy?

God Bless,

Jake

 

 

So...after all the debate..your conclusion is you think I am wrong? I have no problem with what you think...until you state that I am posting nonsense..choose to abandon the debate..without proving I actually posted any nonsense. And this is the kind of statement that does lead me to believe you have malicious intent.

Now in your second paragraph..I will quote you exactly..."This is a purely hypothetical question though, as we both know this will never occur."


That is 100,000% correct...which is what I have been saying since DAY ONE on this website. But still the bank defenders keep giving advice "supposedly" because they "care" so much...knowing DAMN WELL it will not do a thing in most cases...and the proof is in the reports, and what you stated.

I know that blaming it all on the customer..telling them they don't know how to use a register....blaming them for not reading contracts they signed, telling them the bank did no wrong and the customers are all irresponsible...etc..etc..will not stop any reports from coming in if the customer is ripped off by a banks tactics. So I guess I was right all along..the only reason the bank defenders are responding..is to belittle the customers who complain here. The one question that has not been answered....and may never be to anyone's satisfaction..is... WHY?

I on the other hand know that the changes in policies will not stop all overdrafts..or overdraft fees...but I know it will cut down on overdrafts caused by bank manipulations and forced courtesy OD protection...and more then likely most overdrafts that occur after the changes are in effect..will by all logic be legitimate overdrafts..hence the fees will be legitimate...there will be no confusion or debate. And since we will not be able to defend this customer..nor blame the bank....THEN bank defenders advice will have some merit...and as well...any of us can simply state..."now that the banks allow you to opt out of OD protection...why not try that if you can't control your spending?" Imagine that?? Advice that can actually work. Never thought we'd see that here.

As far as you last statement and I quote..."I do HOPE that your idea of changing the opt-out for OD protection works. That would be great. I know that it will accomplish nothing though."

Perhaps you think it will accomplish nothing..but I do not see how that is possible. If a customer who chooses to opt out of OD protection is allowed to do so by the bank...or if a new customer is not "automatically" opted in which is the way it has been for years...the transaction is DECLINED at any point of sale...or ANY ATM once the account reaches zero. And since the FDIC report states MOST of the fees occurred due to transactions at a POS or an ATM... on what basis of fact can you logically conclude opt out will accomplish nothing? You would need to debunk the FDIC report to back up that statement.. Edward or myself did not make any of this up.

As far as going back to cash...may not be a bad idea for many people. Who knows what the banks will pull next. lets just hope "cash" will continue to hold any value as with the way things are going..we might at well send China toilet paper to pay our debt to them.

And you have every right to draw your own conclusion. But are you really "reading" all the posts...or skimming through them to draw a conclusion.

Because yes..you are correct that the fees are a bit high...as if you were to convert those "fees" to interest rate..they would be well into the 4 digits...but the cost of a fee per say itself is not what this debate is about.

The debate is about the banks tactic of combining forced mandatory automatic "courtesy" overdraft protection...with the manipulations and re-sequencing of transactions from highest to lowest.

Now I could not agree more..that if a customer does not overdraft ..they would not incur any fees. As far as to all the ways overdrafts can occur...there is plenty of information regarding that on other reports...but to keep it simple..this is what I see happening with the way banks were operating...

A customer incurs an overdraft...perhaps this is the first time ever. Some customers have stated they did not know why the bank allowed the debit to go through if the account was at or below zero..but nevertheless..it went through. Now...lets say (and we see this often), the customer realizes they overdrafted...and they are aware the bank charges a 35 dollar fee for this. So the customer say to him/her self "oh well, I guess I messed up...I am going to have to make a deposit to cover the transaction..and pay the 35 dollar fee...my bad"

Now if it ended right there...most likely we would not even know about it..because it was a legitimate overdraft fee charged for a legitimate overdraft. The only complaint the customer might have in this case..is why wasn't the card declined at point of sale.

But this is not the end..it's only the beginning. Since the bank re-ordered this customers transactions at the end of the day....the largest transaction will be "processed" first. Do you know what this does Jake??  Allow me to explain..

..the largest transaction wipes out the account...and any transaction the banks list after that due to re-sequencing..has a 35 dollar fee attached to it for overdrafting...even though all of those transactions had the funds available at the time if the transaction..and were cleared. In addition...older transactions that were mysteriously "held" f